From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Dec 29 16:02:58 1998
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:57:30 -0600
From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)"
     <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET
Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9810B"

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:02:40 -0800
Reply-To:     shander@cdsnet.net
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Sharon Anderson <shander@CDSNET.NET>
Subject:      Scott's Work
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Personally, Trouble And Her Friends is my favorite book.  It's a pretty
straightforward adventure story, although the adventure is set in cyberspace.
The main character is seen by the rest of the world, and sees herself, as an
outlaw.  Some of her actions would legally be criminal.   She is comfortable
with that, because it's irrelevant to what she really wants.  Which is to be
reunited with her lover.  So it's a romance, too.  The Big Issues are pretty
black and white.  Given a choice, we'd all choose to be outlaws and criminals,
too.  Unlike Shadow Man, which is much more complex, and a more difficult
read.  Shadow Man  has issues where you have to think about where you stand
and what you want.  It isn't easy; this world is not black and white.
        I think part of the complexity for me as some buttons which she pushed.
Although I identify strongly as a lesbian, I have never been comfortable with
transgendered people.  Even when I've tried to be open to friendship, females
who have a Y chromosome still come across to me as Male in attitude and
sensibility, even if they have hair to their waist and four-inch fingernails.
.  As Other.  More often, I usually duck quietly out the back door.  I want my
own set of rose-colored blinders.  The idea of five genders shreds the plastic
and hands them back to me in little pieces.  It makes me have to work.  Most
of the time, I don't wanna work.  I'm lazy.   I want the adventure with the
happy, romantic ending.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 03:26:30 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mary-Ellen Maynard <Melnjo@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi Joyce - you said;

<<Before reading Shadow Man I also purchased Trouble and Her Friends.  If it's
written in the same bland style, I don't have any interest in reading it.>>

Can't say if it's her normal style, but I and my non-bookaholic lover both
liked "Trouble" a lot. The gender structure in "Shadow Man" was much harder
for me to "get" and get through - and I've been known to read cereal boxes
when deprived of reading material.

"Trouble" is definitely worth a look IMHO.

Happy Reading

Mary-Ellen Maynard
Crystal Mist Glass
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:14:33 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Julieanne * <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      Re: OT Behn and Greer
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:01 PM 10/7/98 EDT, Pheobe wrote:
>
>I greatly admire The Female Eunuch but there has been a lot of work done in
>women's studies on this period since it was published.
>

I understood that Greer's comments as quoted by Mike, were from "Slipshod
Sibyls" - (not the Female Eunuch) a very recent work.

As an aside - Greer has written several academic-feminist books, as well as
scholarly/literary works since the Eunuch was first published in 1969 -
interestingly, it has never been out-of-print in all that time.

However, I recently read that Greer's new book is a Eunuch-sequel entitled
'The Whole Woman' - due to be released in March 1999 to coincide with the
30th anniversary of the Female Eunuch. (and also, soon after Greer's 60th
birthday:) It was noted in the article that Greer was paid an enormous sum
unheard of for any living writer, let alone feminist writers.
Do any of the UK list members have any more information on this release?
For example, is it likely to be a multi-national launch?
Apologies for not being sci-fi/fantasy - but it sure is cutting edge
feminism:)

Julieanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:15:05 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Michael Marc Levy <levymm@UWEC.EDU>
Subject:      Butler's Parable of the Talents
In-Reply-To:  <v01530510b240dc51e235@[199.184.188.171]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote:

>
> BTW, looking forward to reading PARABLE OF THE TALENTS, Octavia Butler's
> long awaited continuation of PARABLE OF THE SOWER! Out soon, and I think
> we'll get to see Octavia at the store this winter. Yay!
>

I was fortunate to get a review copy of Parable of the Talents and it's
every bit as good as Parable of the Sower. In some ways it reads like a
cross between The Handmaid's Tale and The Grapes of Wrath. Great book.

Mike Levy
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:01:26 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Janice E. Dawley" <jdawley@TOGETHER.NET>
Subject:      Re: BDG Nomination: THE FEMALE MAN
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mike Stanton wrote:
> The authors whose works comprise the 'Western Canon' are
> overwhelmingly male (Bloom 1995 Appendices A - D). To redress this,
> feminist scholars have clamoured for the inclusion of more female
> authors although until relatively recently, there were few good female
> published authors. Another problem - for older writers - is serious
> doubt over which works 'actually represent what women wrote and the
> way they wrote it' (Greer 1995:172). In general 'scholars who struggle
> to get women poets admitted to the canon...have been stymied in the
> past by a lack of reliable texts' (Greer 1995:xvii).

Got it. But now I have another question: what does this have to do with
Joanna Russ? Certainly there's no doubt that she wrote *The Female Man*.

--
Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT
http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm
Listening to: Elliott Smith -- either/or
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:17:43 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Robin Reid <Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU>
Subject:      Reading Greer
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Mike Stanton "I'd like to suggest that any feminist who hasn't read Gremaine
Greer's
"Slip-shod sybils" should do so because it's a fascinating book which is -
literally - un-put-down-able."

Why only feminists?  (Obviously this is a feminist sf list, but as posts
have made clear, not all participants identify as femiminsts, or at least
the same kind of feminists).  Why shouldn't all literary scholars read Greer?

Robin
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:38:00 -0700
Reply-To:     Karen Brighton <kbrighto@fred.fhcrc.org>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Karen Brighton <kbrighto@FRED.FHCRC.ORG>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  <7cae5316.361c18bb@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I liked Shadow Man because it made me think about genders, and my
assumptions of gender.  I found the new set of pronouns difficult to grasp
at first and was surprised to find myself trying to assign male and
female to these genders.

Scott built a complex culture I would have liked to see explored in more
depth.  I found the sanctioned use of performance art (drumming, dancing,
singing) as a safe form of protest fascinating.  Of course as it
challenged the strictures of the society it didn't stay safe, and perhaps
never truly was.  A society so custom-bound had to have some way to let
off steam.

Trade was another interesting piece which showed that although the rest of
humanity may have acknowledged the 5 genders, but it seems to have
constructed a new set of rules and restrictions re. who can love who, and
how.  I would have thought such a radical change would open a society to
embrace diversity, rather than try to control it.

Karen
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:36:49 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anthea Hartley Stanton <ajhs@USA.NET>
Subject:      BDG: Voting
Comments: To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Terri

I'd like to vote for the selection of the 4 books listed below for the
Feminist SF/F discussion group:

Ursula K. LeGuin: Four Ways to Forgiveness. Harper Mass Market Paperbacks
Reprint edition August 1996 ISBN: 006105401, List Price: $5.99

Elizabeth Moon: The Deed of Paksenarrion. Baen Books Paperback Reissue edition
February 1992 ISBN: 0671721046, List Price: $15.00

Joanna Russ: The Female Man. Beacon Press Paperback Reprint edition January
1987, ISBN: 0807063134, List Price: $12.00

Connie Willis: The Doomsday Book. Spectra Mass Market Paperback Reprint
edition September 1993 ISBN: 0553562738, List Price: $6.50


Anthea Hartley Stanton
________________________________________________
ajhs@usa.net


URGENT - I've faxed this to home and your office.

Michael love

Changed again! Tried to get you at SAC but Luis said you left Seville at
15:00. I've had to postpone the meeting until 10:00 Fri. I won't land until
18:30 and will have to change at the airport.

I'll need my mauve suit (with the slacks which need pressing), my white
ruffled blouse (may need pressing), my star brooch, those amethyst earrings
and new knee-hi's (from my top drawer) - I've got underwear and shoes. _You_
told Farida that she needn't come in tomorrow so... Don't make those rude
gestures at me my lad - click your heels, shout "Zu Befehl" and get on with
it, mein schatz.

No "Letters from Anthea" tonight, I'm too cold - lots of soprano brass monkeys
about! Anyway what can I say about a place where nostril hair growing is a
major spectator sport?

I see you've been at poor Aphra. When the cat's away working like a dog to
keep the wolf from the door, the rat's been ogling flamenco dancers and
arguing about poets. Did you see that note about Greer's new book? I've heard
nothing. Hope you submitted your votes on BDG selections - I'm going to do
mine as soon as I get this off.

I finally reached Sue this morning. Someone's going to have to explain to her
how the birds-and-bees thing works or we'll be knee-deep in tiny Hartmanns.

I'd like to dig in for the weekend too, but this'll be our last free weekend
until January. We're both getting desperately short of things so we'll have to
shop on Sat morning and have a make-n-mend on Sat afternoon. Sunday we can
have off.

I'll phone you at the office tomorrow.

Love from a lonely and grumpy Anthea

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:02:12 PDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Daniel Krashin <dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Content-Type: text/plain

I've noticed before that Melissa Scott sometimes seems to have trouble
blending the gender-bending and the tech-speculating parts of her
stories.  The perfect example is in _Trouble and her Friends_, where
most computer users have a primitive form of virtual reality, but
a smaller circle, mostly gay and lesbian, use the "brainworm" which
allows direct mind-computer linkage.

Get Real!  If there was such a thing, computer geeks of all colors,
genders, and nationalities would be all over it.  It seemed to me that
she wanted to link the stuff about the brainworm with the (rather
interesting) portrait of a club of gay hackers, and it didn't go
together all that well.

_Shadow Man_ seems to have a similar problem in balancing the
implications of the society she writes about, with her intent
in writing the book in the first place.  It's not quite
didacticism, but close.

Danny


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:17:47 PDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Daniel Krashin <dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Oct 1998 to 7 Oct 1998
Content-Type: text/plain

>Date:    Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:19:58 +0100
>From:    Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
>Subject: Re: BDG Nomination: THE FEMALE MAN
>
>On 6 Oct 98, Janice E. Dawley & Jessie Stickgold-Sarah
>wrote:
>
>> I've never read any Aphra Behn and have never even heard of
>> Katherine Phillips, so maybe you could clarify by letting us know
what
>> reasons feminist scholars have for heaping praise on them.
>
>> Do y'all think we could have a little more explanation and a little
less
>> citation? I don't mean to impugn your credentials, valid scholarly
>> techniques, and relevance to this forum, but I have no idea what
you're
>> talking about.
>
>I hope what follows will make my allusions a little clearer. I've used
>'Western Canon' in the sense of 'the literary works "authoritative in
our
>[Western European] culture"' (Bloom 1995:1).
>
>The authors whose works comprise the 'Western Canon' are overwhelmingly
>male (Bloom 1995 Appendices A - D). To redress this, feminist scholars
have
>clamoured for the inclusion of more female authors although until
>relatively recently, there were few good female published authors.
Another
>problem - for older writers - is serious doubt over which works
'actually
>represent what women wrote and the way they wrote it' (Greer 1995:172).
In
>general 'scholars who struggle to get women poets admitted to the
>canon...have been stymied in the past by a lack of reliable texts'
(Greer
>1995:xvii).
>
>Two female Restoration poets, Katherine Philips (d. 1664) and Aphra
Behn
>(d. 1689), are examples of such authors. Most of their work was
>'modernised' (as Greer puts it) or extensively edited by male editors
to
>make it more marketable. Even so, Behn (like others) had to write
'bawdy
>plays' etc to survive, 'because nothing else would sell' (Greer
1995:193).
>Some attributed work was probably downright forgery (Charles Gildon and
>Samuel Briscoe, for example, published much fraudulent work under
Behn's
>name - Greer 1995:196). Even during their lifetimes, it's uncertain how
>much artistic control the women had or whether they actually exercised
it.
>Yet the "work" attributed to both writers has been closely analysed and
>effusively praised by certain feminist scholars - the praise even
>extending, in Behn's case for example, to work definitely that of
Gildon
>and/or Briscoe.

So if I understand you properly, much of Aphra Behn's supposed work
was actually written or edited by other people.  Are there any
works that are definitely by her, and are they any good?  I'm just
asking out of curiousity, I have had very mixed results in the past
reading "rediscovered feminist classics."

Also, I'm not sure what Behn has to do with Russ.  Yes, multiculturalism
has sometimes pulled minor or ambivalent historical figures into the
spotlight as role models (see any modern high school American history
textbook for numerous examples), but I don't see that as being true
of Joanna Russ. She wasn't one of the first female SF writers, or even
IIRC one of the first openly female SF writers.  She can be placed in
a movement of feminist SF writers, but certainly had a lot of influence
on the genre as a whole too.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't see her, or her novel
_The Female Man_ as a beneficiary of some sort of literary tokenism
or Affirmative Action.  I think she makes the shortlist of feminist
SF writers, and is very appropriate for the BDG.
[snip]

Danny

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:18:54 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jessie Stickgold-Sarah <jss@PA.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Thu, 08 Oct 98 10:38:00 PDT."
              <Pine.GSO.3.95.981008090845.28864B-100000@fred>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>I found the sanctioned use of performance art (drumming, dancing,
>singing) as a safe form of protest fascinating.  Of course as it
>challenged the strictures of the society it didn't stay safe, and perhaps
>never truly was.

It occurred to me, reading this, that maybe this is part of the reason why
some people love Melissa Scott and others are confused as to why. Her books
are absolutely overflowing with tiny little differences, with extrapolations
and cultural mixings and a little of this and a little of that. I love that.
It fascinates me. But it's true that I haven't, lately, been able to get into
her characters; they blur together. The last one I read (Dreaming Metal), the
only character that I thought I really had a feel for was the AI.

Did anyone read her first trilogy? I forget the titles -- the first one was
Five-Twelfths of Heaven -- but it was about a woman named Silence Leigh and it
posited a form of FTL travel having to do with music. Fascinating; and the
characters seemed much fuller, much more individual. Whereas lately I feel
like her characters get lost in the ideas.

jessie
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:36:07 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Stahl, Sheryl" <SFStahl@CN.HUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> I've noticed before that Melissa Scott sometimes seems to have trouble
> blending the gender-bending and the tech-speculating parts of her
> stories.  The perfect example is in _Trouble and her Friends_, where
> most computer users have a primitive form of virtual reality, but
> a smaller circle, mostly gay and lesbian, use the "brainworm" which
> allows direct mind-computer linkage.
>
> Get Real!  If there was such a thing, computer geeks of all colors,
> genders, and nationalities would be all over it.  It seemed to me that
> she wanted to link the stuff about the brainworm with the (rather
> interesting) portrait of a club of gay hackers, and it didn't go
> together all that well.
>
>From what I remember, all kinds of people used the brainworm - but most were
very isolated/loner types - it was just this group of g/l that met outside
of cyberspace.  I got the impression that since they were outsiders in the
real as well as virtual world that it was easier for them to connect in
person - especially since using the brainworm wasn't legal - they felt safe
with each other.
sheryl
> _Shadow Man_ seems to have a similar problem in balancing the
> implications of the society she writes about, with her intent
> in writing the book in the first place.  It's not quite
> didacticism, but close.
>
> Danny
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:42:01 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Stahl, Sheryl" <SFStahl@CN.HUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Did anyone read her first trilogy? I forget the titles -- the first one
> was
> Five-Twelfths of Heaven -- but it was about a woman named Silence Leigh
> and it
> posited a form of FTL travel having to do with music. Fascinating; and the
> characters seemed much fuller, much more individual. Whereas lately I feel
> like her characters get lost in the ideas.
>
> jessie
>
> I really loved her first trilogy - that what got me hooked on her work - I
> think the other titles were _Silence in Solitude_ and _Empress of Earth_.
> I agree that the characters were more fully developed and maybe showed
> more warmth?  The trilogy also had an interesting group marraige.
>
         I think that there is an interesting shift between the earlier and
later works - in the Silence books, Silence is shown to be a woman filling a
men's role - she did not have much respect for any woman who was in a more
traditional role.   Her later works seem to show men and women in more equal
roles.

        sheryl
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:59:30 -0700
Reply-To:     Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Sandy Candioglos <Sandy.Candioglos@INTEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  <C1BF83BA3880D011951700805F06EA7D2EB529@PROXY>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Point of Hopes is an excellent example of this; women are in charge of the
government, and otherwise, everything seems absolutely equal, and there
didn't seem to be any assumptions you could make, based on gender; it's like
every time they needed a new character, they flipped a coin "is this one a
male or a female"?  Interestingly, the POV is from two different males, but
the feel of the whole book is very egalitarian (gender-wise, anyway).  I'm
finding the same thing with The Kindly Ones, so far, too.  The POVs are
mixed (the one I consider "central" is male, though), and you can't make any
gender assumptions at all.  I think she does a really good job of doing
that, and making it feel really background, and assumed; none of the
characters is surprised or bothered by the gender equality.  Shadow Man was
an obvious exception to that; it's been a while since I read it, but I seem
to remember the society being quite patriarchal.  Of course, the whole
planet's supposed to be pretty backward, by the standards of the rest of the
worlds.

BTW, there are a pair of VERY minor characters in Kindly Ones that come from
a planet where everything had involved 2-species symbiotic relationships,
and the people who settled there ended up doing everything in pairs.
Anybody know if any of her other books is about this planet?  It sounds like
it could be fascinating!

  -Sandy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stahl, Sheryl [mailto:SFStahl@CN.HUC.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 12:42 PM
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Shadow Man
>
<snip>
>
>          I think that there is an interesting shift between
> the earlier and
> later works - in the Silence books, Silence is shown to be a
> woman filling a
> men's role - she did not have much respect for any woman who
> was in a more
> traditional role.   Her later works seem to show men and
> women in more equal
> roles.
>
>         sheryl
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:14:13 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Caroline Couture <Ccouture@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  <19981008190212.11812.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Daniel Krashin" at
              Oct 8, 98 12:02:12 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Danny sez:
> I've noticed before that Melissa Scott sometimes seems to have trouble
> blending the gender-bending and the tech-speculating parts of her
> stories.  The perfect example is in _Trouble and her Friends_, where
> most computer users have a primitive form of virtual reality, but
> a smaller circle, mostly gay and lesbian, use the "brainworm" which
> allows direct mind-computer linkage.
> [snip]

The "wire" was just another way to make the hackers of TAHF "different"
than the other hackers. (As you said.) I seem to recall that she mentions
somewhere that other hackers thought the wire was "cheating" in some way.
Its been a while since I've read the book so I may be remembering this
incorrectly.

I actually like the contrast between the "outlaw" hackers and the
corporate computer security folks. I know folks who like to think of
themselves as console cowboys and the attitude seemed right to me.

Caroline
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:28:00 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Becky Hinshaw <hinshaw@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Shadow Man
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"

Jessie wrote:

 "Did anyone read her first trilogy?.. Five-Twelfths of Heaven
...............  the
 characters seemed much fuller, much more individual. Whereas lately I
feel
 like her characters get lost in the ideas."

and Sheryl wrote:

   "..  other titles were _Silence in Solitude_ and _Empress of
Earth_.
 I agree that the characters were more fully developed and maybe
showed
 more warmth?  "

     Shadow Man was the only one of  Scott's books I have enjoyed
since the Silence series
(do not really like cyber punk)  but I felt that Shadow Man lacked
emotional development. I never felt connected to or empathized with
any of the characters. They seemed remote from the reader and from
each other, constantly analyzing every move and motive for advantage.

     The culture was fascinating but needed much more detail and
development. Of course I love big, thick books that create new
worlds/cultures and do not mind being buried in details.

Becky Hinshaw
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:51:42 +0000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Allyson Shaw <allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: BDG Nomination: THE FEMALE MAN
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mike Stanton wrote:

> I know nothing and care less about 'traditional' literary analysis; my own
> interests lie in CATA - computer-aided text analysis.
>
> I'm not sure how we got onto William Shakespeare unless you're referring to
> my 1986 seminar presentation.


For those of us who don't know what "CATA" is (me) can you give a
*short* explanation.
Also, I think one reason why this thread may get some members' dander up
is because much of what was written, painted, created by women has been
labeled anonymous, or attributed to a male mentor-- i.e.-- Shelley's
Frankenstien attributed to her husband, etc. I think that's the point of
bringing in William Shakespeare, in terms of this question of dubious
authorship which is often put to women's work.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:21:07 -0800
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         marcie begleiter <mbegleit@ARTCENTER.EDU>
Subject:      BDG nominations
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi, I'm a new member and have been lurking for a couple of weeks, reading
through the mail, nominations and general ideas weaving back and forth over
the waves. I'm very happy to have found you as I've been reading through
this literature for years and have rarely had a soul to talk to regarding
the stories and ideas brought up in the genre.

My votes for the BDG are:

Octavia Butler; "Wild Seed"

Joanna Russ; "Female Man"

Connie Willis; "The Doomsday Book"

C.J.Cherryn; "Cyteen"

Looking forward to joining the discussions

Marcie Begleiter
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:09:44 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/8/98 12:03:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM writes:

<<  It's not quite
 didacticism, but close. >>


Why so?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 05:49:19 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      BDG Selections
Comments: To: terri wakefield <terriergraphics@cybertours.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Dear Terri

Selections for the Feminist SF/F Book Discussion Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Below are the four books I should like to be discussed during the first
four months of the coming year. For the sake of completeness, I have given
them in order of preference.

1. C. J. Cherryh. _Cyteen_

2. Joanna Russ _The Female Man_

3. Connie Willis _The Doomsday Book_

4. Ursula K. LeGuin. _Four Ways to Forgiveness_



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
___________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:24:01 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Reading Greer
Comments: cc: ajks@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 8 Oct 98, at 10:17, Robin Reid wrote:

> Why only feminists?  (Obviously this is a feminist sf list, but as posts
> have made clear, not all participants identify as femiminsts, or at least
> the same kind of feminists).  Why shouldn't all literary scholars read
> Greer?

Robin

I thought that all literary scholars would already have read such an
important book. But of course you're perfectly  correct. Chapter I ('The
muse', p. 1-35) alone is enough to make "Slip-shod sybils" required reading
for _anyone_ with the slightest interest in literature. The last paragraph
in the book (p. 423-424) told _me_ more about the soul of a poet than
anything else I've ever read.

The value in the book I believe is far more than just as a set of potted
biographies. It's a guide to literary criticism, a detective story, a style
manual for writers, a handbook on disputed texts, a textbook on how
authors' minds work, an evocative account of little known facets of British
history and - the cherry on top - a 'damnably good [read]'!

I'd better hasten to add that I'm not a feminist. Other than "Slip-shod
sybils", I disagree with much - in some works almost all - of what Greer
has to say. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying _every one_ of her
books, envying her incisive mind and learning from her scholarship.



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
___________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:22:15 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Feminist Cyberpunk comments
In-Reply-To:  <80256698.001A7CBE.00@osiris.postmaster.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ok. I need some insites and little comments... anything on feminist
cyberpunk. I need to write a 5000 word disitation and a lot of it will have
to do with this. Also feminist cyberpunk in art if anyone knows anything
about that.
I would just like some comments etc that might be nice to work with.

Thanks heaps!
jenn

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:46:37 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anne Vespry <avespry@OLLIS.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject:      Re: Feminist Cyberpunk comments
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.3.32.19981009202215.006b8138@hemlock.newcastle.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:

> Ok. I need some insites and little comments... anything on feminist
> cyberpunk. I need to write a 5000 word disitation and a lot of it will have
> to do with this. Also feminist cyberpunk in art if anyone knows anything
> about that.
> I would just like some comments etc that might be nice to work with.

Have you tried using a web search engine and looking for terms like
cyberpunk and women or cyberpunk and feminist?

Anne

Anne Vespry               *******      http://www.vex.net/~maverick
After Stonewall Bookshop   *****               never forget
avespry(at)                 ***               only dead fish
ollisdotuottawadotca         *             swim WITH the stream
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:42:24 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Joyce Jones <hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Subject:      BDG Shadow Man

Hi Becky, you wrote:

"Shadow Man was the only one of  Scott's books I have enjoyed
since the Silence series
(do not really like cyber punk)  but I felt that Shadow Man lacked
emotional development. I never felt connected to or empathized with
any of the characters. They seemed remote from the reader and from
each other, constantly analyzing every move and motive for advantage.

     The culture was fascinating but needed much more detail and
development. Of course I love big, thick books that create new
worlds/cultures and do not mind being buried in details."

Interesting to see that we have the same opinion about the lack of emotional
involvement with and among the characters yet a completely different opinion
of the book as a whole.  The idea of the book"s being longer in order to
provide more totally irrelevant detail is almost painful to contemplate.
Had I not been reading Shadow Man for this group I would have stopped way
before the end.  I felt Scott put in an excruciating amount of detail about
the culture but didn't tie anything together.  I  liked the drumming, the
fabric art, the use of color, the idea of the permeation of drugs even into
shampoo.  (All those different vehicles were pretty boring.)    I found the
use of novel language to describe the different genders stimulating, I liked
the glossary at the end, being always a sucker for a good glossary; and I
found that I could keep track of the genders and had ways of pronouncing the
pronouns to myself.  All those little details would have made for a
wonderful book, but Scott seemed to me just to have written an outline for
that book and needed someone else to give it all form.  Maybe she needs to
work in cooperation with another author, she can provide the ideas and
points of interest and the other author could provide the literature.

Joyce
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:53:14 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elizabeth Burton <PBEK@AUSTINTX.NET>
Subject:      Critique request
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003A_01BDF37B.65622620"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BDF37B.65622620
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm a newcomer to this list with a special request (which I've already =
cleared with the boss ;-}).

I have a short story I would like comment on posted at =
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/4714/UglyPrincess.html

The story is targetted to the 10-16-year-old market. The response from =
that age group has been almost uniformly positive. Still, I would like =
input on it -- the responses I got from an online critique group were =
mainly from men and, frankly, most of them didn't get it.

TIA

Lisa Burton
Xanadu Scriveners
http://members.tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html
Pager
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062745
ICQ SFF Writers' Group
http://groups.icq.com/group.asp?no=3D409617=20
The Dance of Light and Magic
http://www.delphi.com/Castle_of_Light

------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BDF37B.65622620
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I'm a newcomer to this list with a =
special=20
request (which I've already cleared with the boss ;-}).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I have a short story I would like comment on posted =
at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/4714/UglyPrincess.html">ht=
tp://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/4714/UglyPrincess.html</A></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The story is targetted to the 10-16-year-old market. =
The=20
response from that age group has been almost uniformly positive. Still, =
I would=20
like input on it -- the responses I got from an online critique group =
were=20
mainly from men and, frankly, most of them didn't get it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>TIA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Lisa Burton</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Xanadu Scriveners<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html">http://members.=
tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html</A><BR>Pager<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062745">http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062=
745</A><BR>ICQ=20
SFF Writers' Group<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://groups.icq.com/group.asp?no=3D409617">http://groups.icq.co=
m/group.asp?no=3D409617</A>=20
<BR>The Dance of Light and Magic<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.delphi.com/Castle_of_Light">http://www.delphi.com/Cast=
le_of_Light</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BDF37B.65622620--
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:09:53 UT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Lesley Hall <Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man

Re _The Kindly Ones_
>The POVs are mixed (the one I consider "central" is male, though), and you
>can't make any gender assumptions at all

Especially as the gender of the character I would consider 'central' (may not
be the same one! which one is yours?) (if a multiple viewpoint story can have
a 'central' character) is never defined at all!
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:28:00 -0700
Reply-To:     Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Sandy Candioglos <Sandy.Candioglos@INTEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  <UPMAIL14.199810091718240967@classic.msn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hmmm....Darn it, did I get bit by that again? We're probably thinking of the
same character, the "medium", Trey.  I think it was probably the name that
threw me off; too much like Troy, which is definitely male in my mind.
Pending me actually finding a gendered pronoun associated with Trey, I'll
retract my statement about the "central" character being male.  *sigh*.
Thanks for pointing that out, it'll make reading the rest of the book even
more interesting! :)

  -Sandy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesley Hall [mailto:Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 10:10 AM
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Shadow Man
>
>
> Re _The Kindly Ones_
> >The POVs are mixed (the one I consider "central" is male,
> though), and you
> >can't make any gender assumptions at all
>
> Especially as the gender of the character I would consider
> 'central' (may not
> be the same one! which one is yours?) (if a multiple
> viewpoint story can have
> a 'central' character) is never defined at all!
> Lesley
> Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:39:15 UT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Lesley Hall <Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT Behn and Greer

I haven't read 'Slipshod Sibyls' (so many books, so little time): but the
reviews here in the UK suggested that Greer perhaps went somewhat out of her
way to slag off women's poetic achievements - i.e. it goes beyond a simple
explanatory model of why so few women poets in the canon, to a position that
could be taken as denying that any women poets (or very very few) have ever
been any good. I've certainly thought that there has been a tendency in her
post 'Eunuch' writing which is quirky and individualistic and, though
sometimes stimulating, not always feminist (and I don't mean by this, simply
not 'PC' feminist; I mean that it's hard to classify what she writes as
falling in any way under the rubric of feminism) (though I'm not sure I'd go
as far as Australian historian Mary Spongberg, who wrote an article on Greer
with the provocative title 'If she's such a great feminist, how come all the
pigs dig her?).
        I can't comment on her literary scholarship but as an historian who works on
sex and gender I found _Sex and Destiny_ rather dubious in parts. Also
(personal twinge as a professional archivist!) I was somewhat repelled by her
accounts of bullying archivists and librarians when researching _Daddy We
Hardly Knew You_ when they were simply applying general rules which apply to
all researchers (even Famous Names) and which are meant to protect individual
privacy, etc.
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com

=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:01:52 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anthea Hartley Stanton <ajhs@USA.NET>
Subject:      OT Behn and Greer and Spongberg
Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 9 Oct 98, at 16:39, Lesley Hall wrote:

> I haven't read 'Slipshod Sibyls' (so many books, so little time): but the
> reviews here in the UK suggested that Greer perhaps went somewhat out of
> her way to slag off women's poetic achievements....

I agree with you on this one although I wouldn't put it as strongly. I
remember thinking when I read the book that some of her comments were
seriously inconsistent with her editorial remarks in "Kissing the rod" and the
Aphra Behn collection (forget the title). And from my own reading, the reviews
were as you say. To forestall Mike (Stanton), I should point out that 4 of the
5 unfavourable reviews by feminist scholars we saw were from women who would
be hurt badly if Greer is right.

> ...though I'm not sure I'd go as far as Australian historian
> Mary Spongberg, who wrote an article on Greer with the provocative
> title 'If she's such a great feminist, how come all the pigs dig her?

To continue this meander: A friend at UWA gave me Spongberg's "Feminising
Venereal Disease" as a birthday present when I was out there. Spongberg's a
professor at Macquarie University; possibly head of the Women's Studies
Institute - or is that still Wendy Waring?

The book's well worth reading although it's full of the usual revisionism and
20/20 hindsight (I can get the full biblio details if you're interested).

>... bullying archivists and librarians

I can see you've never been a journalist or media researcher!



AJ
Anthea Hartley Stanton
________________________________________________
ajhs@usa.net



____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:30:49 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jennifer Krauel <jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSO.3.95.981008090845.28864B-100000@fred>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:38 AM 10/08/98 -0700, Karen Brighton wrote:
>I liked Shadow Man because it made me think about genders, and my
>assumptions of gender.  I found the new set of pronouns difficult to grasp
>at first and was surprised to find myself trying to assign male and
>female to these genders.

As others have noted, in some aspects Shadow Man was a difficult read
because it jolted us out of the comfortable shorthand we often use based on
gender/orientation.  The funny characters/pronouns made it impossible to
even read the words comfortably.  This is perhaps a more extreme case of
the discomfort many of us faced reading Halfway Human.

I thought the frequent invocation of hallucinogenic drugs -- smoke, food &
drink, even soap or shampoo as I recall -- was a good metaphor for the
feeling of disconnection I got from losing those gender/orientation
assumptions.

Jennifer
jkrauel@actioneer.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:38:15 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jennifer Krauel <jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM>
Subject:      BDG Silence and other Scott stories
In-Reply-To:  <9810081918.AA29523@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:18 PM 10/08/98 -0700, Jessie wrote:
>Did anyone read her first trilogy? I forget the titles -- the first one was
>Five-Twelfths of Heaven -- but it was about a woman named Silence Leigh
and it
>posited a form of FTL travel having to do with music. Fascinating; and the
>characters seemed much fuller, much more individual. Whereas lately I feel
>like her characters get lost in the ideas.

I think I started off with those Silence books (there were three of them,
which probably contributed to the depth of the characters).  Scott is such
a great story teller.  Sometimes the characters are better than others, and
often she needs a better editor, but she's always got a great story.  One
interesting thing I remember about the Silence books is that the main
characters have a three-way marriage that apparently never involves sex, or
at least not with Silence anyway.  I don't remember a single sex scene or
even reference in all the books.  Later books often have same-sex oriented
characters, though it was never (until Shadow Man) such a key element of
the story.  Great adventures, though.  What an imagination Scott has.

Another interesting recent book is Night Sky Mine, which takes some ideas
about the texture of space from the Silence series and sort of transforms
them into the texture and life forms of cyberspace.

Jennifer
jkrauel@actioneer.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:28:31 UT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Lesley Hall <Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT Behn and Greer and Spongberg

        >To continue this meander: A friend at UWA gave me Spongberg's  >"Feminising
Venereal Disease" as a birthday present [snip]
        >The book's well worth reading although it's full of the usual revisionism
and
        >20/20 hindsight

Some of it's okay, but (as a historian who's done work in this area myself) I
find it a bit one-sided to say the least.

>>... bullying archivists and librarians

>I can see you've never been a journalist or media researcher!

No, but I've dealt with them.... And troublesome as they can be in their
demands (like wanting everything yesterday, to take rare and precious items
away for filming, assuming that their requirements must be far more important
than anything else, etc), they seldom go into the all-out bullying mode that
came through in Greer's account. These were individuals who just happened to
be there on the public desk when she turned up and was told something that was
institutional policy (and in some cases a national legal requirement). They
didn't make the policy, but they took the flak.
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1998 23:56:43 +0100
Reply-To:     terriergraphics@cybertours.com
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Terri Wakefield <terriergraphics@CYBERTOURS.COM>
Organization: Terrier Graphic Design
Subject:      BDG Voting
Comments: cc: jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I just want to remind everyone that  voting for the
next round of BDG nominations ends tomorrow night
(10/10) at midnight EST. The voting is very close this
round, so send me your votes for your *four* favorites to
win.

 Descriptions of the nominated books can be found at

 http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4667/bdg_nom.htm

Thanks
Terri Wakefield
<terriergraphics@cybertours.com>
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:48:52 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Julieanne * <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      Re: Feminist Cyberpunk comments
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:22 PM 10/9/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Ok. I need some insites and little comments... anything on feminist
>cyberpunk. I need to write a 5000 word disitation and a lot of it will have
>to do with this. Also feminist cyberpunk in art if anyone knows anything
>about that.
>I would just like some comments etc that might be nice to work with.


I have read little of feminist cyberpunk - not my favourite genre, except
for two books:

1. Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_ which has been mentioned on this list
before - when I read it, I enjoyed the action and adventure side of it more
than anything else. I felt the genre as a whole though is aimed at a young
adult audience.

2. Alice Nunn's _Illicit Passage_ is very different to most feminist
cyberpunk, particularly in its humour and its use of older women
characters. To quote from the blurb:

"The year is 2101 and the human space colony orbiting Earth is under seige
in its war for independence. Systems are breaking down and sabotage is
suspected. Food is scarce and the space-city is icing up. Bureaucrats
direct men and money to the war in space, while in the Worker's domes women
develop surprising strategies.

A cheerful cup of tea and a good gossip isn't always what it seems.

Gillie, our unlikely heroine, chats away with *Big Barbara*; *Dorothy*;
*Rita* and *Deirdre*, the main computers on the supposedly incorruptible
security networks. Gillie is no cyberpunk hacking into the system however,
but a new kind of hero, the obscure non-entity. She playfully outwits the
bureaucrats, worrying her conformist sister, and confusing her
revolutionary friends in their politically correct straight-jackets. A
whole new twist on the concept of cyber-friendship."

******************************************************

Regards


Julieanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:07:57 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Julieanne * <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      Aliens - the movies
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.3.32.19981009202215.006b8138@hemlock.newcastle.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I have just finished watching the entire 4-film set of the Aliens movies,
finishing with _Alien Resurrection_ as part of a senior high-school Media
Studies unit on symbolism in contemporary film. Argument has developed over
its 'feminist' content...

I saw the sequence of films as involving a lot of 'motherhood' symbolism,
as Ripley starts out 'mothering' and saving humanity by defeating the Alien
queen, but ends up becoming a Mother-Queen of a new race herself.

What do readers of the FSFFU list think? Are there any deeper feminist or
anti-feminist messages in these films? Or is the character of Ripley just a
simple gender-reversal of traditional action-genre films? - similar to GI
Jane etc?
[or as one of my students put it: - "Arnold Swharzenegger in drag"]

Thanks - any comments wld be appreciated:))


Julieanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:45:03 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/10/98 6:14:33 AM, Juliennne wrote:

<< Or is the character of Ripley just a
simple gender-reversal of traditional action-genre films?>>

I have felt this is what Ripley is, except for the one moment in Alien 2 (I
think it's that one) when she confronts the Mother Creature and protects the
young girl.  It's my favorite scene in the films (haven't seen last one)...
Archetypical Protector Goddess, and because she is in the machine, transformed
even physically.

bst
phoebe
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:19:56 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Todd Mason <foxbrick@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Oct 1998 to 7 Oct 1998
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Daniel, even with the special (usually commercial) circumstances cited
in re Behn's surviving work, very little of the work of her's vintage
by any writer has escaped various sorts of "improvement." Go back
further, and look at the very loose approximations we have of much of
Chaucer. Russ champions Behn. As one of the first avowedly feminist
writers to work in the SF field spawned by the magazines, perhaps she
feels kinship.



---Daniel Krashin <dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>
> So if I understand you properly, much of Aphra Behn's supposed work
> was actually written or edited by other people.  Are there any
> works that are definitely by her, and are they any good?  I'm just
> asking out of curiousity, I have had very mixed results in the past
> reading "rediscovered feminist classics."
>
> Also, I'm not sure what Behn has to do with Russ.  Yes,
multiculturalism
> has sometimes pulled minor or ambivalent historical figures into the
> spotlight as role models (see any modern high school American history
> textbook for numerous examples), but I don't see that as being true
> of Joanna Russ. She wasn't one of the first female SF writers, or even
> IIRC one of the first openly female SF writers.  She can be placed in
> a movement of feminist SF writers, but certainly had a lot of
influence
> on the genre as a whole too.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that I don't see her, or her novel
> _The Female Man_ as a beneficiary of some sort of literary tokenism
> or Affirmative Action.  I think she makes the shortlist of feminist
> SF writers, and is very appropriate for the BDG.
> [snip]
>
> Danny
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 20:47:43 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      The Western Canon and _The female man_
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 8 Oct 98, at 12:17, Daniel Krashin wrote:

> What I'm trying to say is that I don't see her, or her novel
> _The Female Man_ as a beneficiary of some sort of literary tokenism
> or Affirmative Action.  I think she makes the shortlist of feminist
> SF writers, and is very appropriate for the BDG.
> [snip]

I follow your argument and I agree with exactly what you say in your last
sentence. Russ is clearly one of the _major feminist SF_ writers.

But that isn't the question implicit in my comments. My question is both
narrower and broader: how does _The female man_ stand in comparison to
works within the mainstream? Is it - relative to them - of high quality or
of low quality? What are the reasons for your opinion? Is it the language
or the font (to go from the sublime to the ridiculous)?

Bloom (1995 p. 564) puts Ursula Le Guin's _The left hand of darkness_ in
the Western Canon - deservedly so in my opinion. Are you suggesting that
_The female man_ should be there? Why? Or if not why not?



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 20:52:14 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Oct 1998 to 7 Oct 1998
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 10 Oct 98, at 11:19, Todd Mason wrote:

> Daniel, even with the special (usually commercial) circumstances cited in
> re Behn's surviving work, very little of the work of her's vintage by any
> writer has escaped various sorts of "improvement." Go back further, and
> look at the very loose approximations we have of much of Chaucer. Russ
> champions Behn. As one of the first avowedly feminist writers to work in
> the SF field spawned by the magazines, perhaps she feels kinship.

Even male authors were 'tampered' with. The comments that Paddy Lyons makes
on the works of Lord Rochester (a contemporary of Behn) bear this out. On
that point, anyone who thinks that our age invented literary obscenity
should read Rochester!

Another point I should have mentioned at the onset were the very large
number of literary frauds prevalent in the decades around Behn's time.
Psalamanazar's fictitious work on Formosa, William Henry Ireland's
wholesale forgery of new Shakespearean plays and James Mcpherson's faker of
an entire suite of 'Gaelic poetry' come to mind immediately. On the other
hand, everyone will recall the barefaced gall of William Lauder who
'showed' that John Milton pinched big chunks of earlier writers' work for
inclusion in _Paradise Lost_.



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
__________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:12:33 +0300
Reply-To:     U Sanna Koulu <skoulu@cc.helsinki.fi>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         U Sanna Koulu <skoulu@CC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      A few thoughts on Banks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hello people.

(As an introduction, let me state that I've been lurking here for some
time and quite enjoyed the conversation, especially since it is hard to
find people interested in really discussing sf&f, let alone the feminist
or women-oriented kind :)


I've been reading Iain M. Banks recently; _Player of Games_ and _Use of
Weapons_. Several friends have recommended his books to me, so I thought
I'd finally give them a shot. Even expecting good sf, I was pleasantly
surprised.

Some of these friends have been young men, the type that prefers
action-oriented /male-oriented sf; yet to me, it seems that Banks writes
in a very 'feminine' way. He writes, imo, very graceful prose, reminding
me of LeGuin or Marge Piercy.

Banks also writes good female characters, and good neuters (the drones).
The women in his books (though in those two, at least, not very central)
seem strong, capable, quirky; not only cardboard models of 'strong' women
in an egalitarian society, but individual & forceful & quite as capable as
the men of messing up their life (which is to me an important aspect of
"good women characters", anyway)


What are your opinions on these aspects? It may be that I'm just reading
too much into Banks's female characters.. or maybe the books _are_ as
'feminist' as they seem :)


- Sanna Koulu


-Sanna Koulu --------------------------------------------------------
-<seanna@iki.fi> ----------------"And when she was good she was -----
-050-5849 617 --------------------very, very good, and when she -----
-Viljo Sohkasen k. 3 E 38---------was bad she was horrid." ----------
-01370 VANTAA -------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:30:43 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Feminist Cyberpunk comments
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.SOL.3.96.981009104543.22185A-100000@ollis.uottawa.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Yep... not THAT much out there... this is the main one

At 10:46 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:
>
>> Ok. I need some insites and little comments... anything on feminist
>> cyberpunk. I need to write a 5000 word disitation and a lot of it will have
>> to do with this. Also feminist cyberpunk in art if anyone knows anything
>> about that.
>> I would just like some comments etc that might be nice to work with.
>
>Have you tried using a web search engine and looking for terms like
>cyberpunk and women or cyberpunk and feminist?
>
>Anne
>
>Anne Vespry               *******      http://www.vex.net/~maverick
>After Stonewall Bookshop   *****               never forget
>avespry(at)                 ***               only dead fish
>ollisdotuottawadotca         *             swim WITH the stream
>
>

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:35:08 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croff
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.5.32.19981010154852.007e9210@ozemail.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I was wondering what peoples thought are on that charater from Tomb
Raider.... damn it I cant remember her... hang on... Laura Croff.
So what do people think of her... is she a good thing? Or not?
For years Ive hated that most computer games only allow you to be a male
character and show the female only as a thing to be saved, unless your
playing something like that Barbie game!
So what do people think or Laura Croff?

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:38:02 +0200
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elethiomel <adaldan@TIN.IT>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 10-10-1998 15:45, Phoebe Wray said:

>In a message dated 10/10/98 6:14:33 AM, Juliennne wrote:
>
><< Or is the character of Ripley just a
>simple gender-reversal of traditional action-genre films?>>
>
>I have felt this is what Ripley is, except for the one moment in Alien 2 (I
>think it's that one) when she confronts the Mother Creature and protects the
>young girl.  It's my favorite scene in the films (haven't seen last one)...
>Archetypical Protector Goddess, and because she is in the machine,
>transformed
>even physically.

There is also IMHO a Bad Mother in Alien One: the Nostromo's computer,
Mother, who betrays her "children" and is an emanation of the
Corporation, itself a mother-figure. There is a lot of tragic or bad
motherhood in the first Alien, starting from what "giving birth" to the
Alien really is. I think that motherhood seen as simply the affirmation
of the natural urge to reproduce and survive is seen as morally neuter
(the Alien is not "evil": he's just a survivor, and even admirable in its
perfection) but decidedly tragic for the individual. In contrast, the
solidarity and fellow-feeling of the crewmembers is seen as more
socialized, better response. Remember, there is a marked Conradian
feeling to the whole thing, and Conrad was big on work and fellow-feeling
as being redeeming.

I'd say that Ripley in the first film is a refusal to be brought down to
the ancient laws of motherhood, and an advancement toward a better
emotional and social bond - she is, after all, a woman who cares for her
crewmen as a worker and officer, not as a mother.


Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel

Anna esta' en la linea
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:38:00 +0200
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elethiomel <adaldan@TIN.IT>
Subject:      Re: A few thoughts on Banks
Comments: To: U Sanna Koulu <skoulu@cc.helsinki.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 10-10-1998 22:12, U Sanna Koulu said:

>What are your opinions on these aspects? It may be that I'm just reading
>too much into Banks's female characters.. or maybe the books _are_ as
>'feminist' as they seem :)

Yes, I think they are. I think also that many of his mainstream novels,
mostly The Wasp Factory and Canal Dreams, are very, and very seriously,
feminist. WF may not be to anybody's taste but the grotesque violence is
by no means gratuitous - it's one of the less gratuitous books I've read.

There era also interesting questions about gender and roles in Excession,
where two people who may, if they wanted to, change sex whenever they
felt like it, and who live in a completely unproprietarian society end up
behaving like stereotypical male and female - and not just because the
author has been lazy about it.


Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel

Anna esta' en la linea
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 05:02:45 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Candice Bradley and Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@ATHENET.NET>
Subject:      Re: Feminist Cyberpunk comments
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have some links on my Cyberculture course page that might help you:

http://www.lawrence.edu/~bradleyc/Cyberlinks.html
Cyberlinks page

http://www.lawrence.edu/~bradleyc/cyberculture.html
Cyberculture course page

Also check out the Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies:
http://otal.umd.edu/~rccs/

Candice Bradley

Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:

> Yep... not THAT much out there... this is the main one
>
> At 10:46 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:
> >
> >> Ok. I need some insites and little comments... anything on feminist
> >> cyberpunk. I need to write a 5000 word disitation and a lot of it will have
> >> to do with this. Also feminist cyberpunk in art if anyone knows anything
> >> about that.
> >> I would just like some comments etc that might be nice to work with.
> >
> >Have you tried using a web search engine and looking for terms like
> >cyberpunk and women or cyberpunk and feminist?
> >
> >Anne
> >
> >Anne Vespry               *******      http://www.vex.net/~maverick
> >After Stonewall Bookshop   *****               never forget
> >avespry(at)                 ***               only dead fish
> >ollisdotuottawadotca         *             swim WITH the stream
> >
> >
>
> ~*If you're not living on the edge,
>          you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:19:02 UT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Lesley Hall <Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG: _Shadow Man_

Having finally managed to disinter and re-read my copy of this, I found myself
struck by the way in which Mhyre Tatian still uses gender as a model for
assumptions about individuals: i.e. even though there are 5 accepted genders
people aren't regarded as individuals but as 'woman, man, fem, mem or herm'.
Tatian is always thinking of people as 'more like an X than a Y' (when Y is
what their accepted gender is) or 'not the stereotypical Y', and when Warraven
makes his decision to leave rather than stay and fight, thinks of it as
typically 'herm' (a 'real man' would stay and fight... or would he? surely
anyone not totally under the dictatorship of testosterone might occasionally
be aware of the sense of a strategic withdrawal?).
        It also occurred to me that perhaps even conceding 5 genders, on the basis of
actual genital conformation, was a somewhat coarse measure for dealing with
the proliferation of intersexuality as a result of the mutation. From my own
reading on intersexual conditions these are in fact much more complex than
this! I don't think Melissa Scott meant us to read the Concord system as ideal
(it clearly has scripted but I found rather vague rules about sexual
appropriateness), and perhaps she was also making the point that having 5
pigeonholes to slot people into isn't really that much of an advance over 2.
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:35:03 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Pamela Bedore <pebedore@SFU.CA>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Comments: To: Sandy Candioglos <Sandy.Candioglos@INTEL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <A96613FBFCC8D111AC3F00A0C96B5401E505F5@FMSMSX42>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote:

> the feel of the whole book is very egalitarian (gender-wise, anyway).  I'm
> finding the same thing with The Kindly Ones, so far, too.  The POVs are
> mixed (the one I consider "central" is male, though), and you can't make any
> gender assumptions at all.  I think she does a really good job of doing
> that, and making it feel really background, and assumed; none of the
> characters is surprised or bothered by the gender equality.

I really enjoy that about all of Scott's books.  It says alot about most
fiction that the lack of gender assumption feels quite strange.  I
understand why a lot of people might not find Scott's books to be
page-turners, but I really enjoy exactly this aspect of her writing.

****The Kindly Ones spoiler alert ******



Another thing I really like about *The Kindly Ones* is that most of the
characters get wiped out halfway through the book.  The second part of the
novel has almost an entirely new cast of characters, in which seemingly
minor characters from part 1 become central.  This is a very gutsy move,
openly foregrounding idea development over character.  We end up not being
able to get close to any but a few characters, which forces the concepts
on us.  Again, this might not be attractive to some readers, but it really
is quite a neat rhetorical strategy.

Cheers,

pamela bedore
department of english
simon fraser university

But play, you must, A tune beyond us, yet ourselves,
A tune upon the blue guitar Of things exactly as they are
                                -Wallace Stevens
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 15:35:51 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         * * <Sidhe71@AOL.COM>
Subject:      OT: Prejudice Tests
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I thought some of you might be interested in
this.

There's a set of four tests on the web (http://depts.washington.edu/iat/)
designed to measure "unconscious, implicit attitudes" in regards to gender,
race, age, and self from the University of Washington and Yale University.

I haven't taken any of them yet, so I can't comment on them.


--Marie
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:59:23 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Bertina Miller <bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.5.32.19981010160757.007df4b0@ozemail.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I happened to love the Aliens movie but Alien Ressurection was simply
disgusting to me. Aliens seemed to be feminist in that Ripley was the
hero(ine) in the movie and she went against the giant corporation that was
trying to keep the alien alive. Alien3 was too wierd for my likes as well.

My 2 cents

Bertina
bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Julieanne * wrote:

> I have just finished watching the entire 4-film set of the Aliens movies,
> finishing with _Alien Resurrection_ as part of a senior high-school Media
> Studies unit on symbolism in contemporary film. Argument has developed over
> its 'feminist' content...
>
> I saw the sequence of films as involving a lot of 'motherhood' symbolism,
> as Ripley starts out 'mothering' and saving humanity by defeating the Alien
> queen, but ends up becoming a Mother-Queen of a new race herself.
>
> What do readers of the FSFFU list think? Are there any deeper feminist or
> anti-feminist messages in these films? Or is the character of Ripley just a
> simple gender-reversal of traditional action-genre films? - similar to GI
> Jane etc?
> [or as one of my students put it: - "Arnold Swharzenegger in drag"]
>
> Thanks - any comments wld be appreciated:))
>
>
> Julieanne
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:18:11 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Janice E. Dawley" <jdawley@TOGETHER.NET>
Subject:      Re: The Western Canon and _The female man_
In-Reply-To:  <80256699.006CBCAC.00@osiris.postmaster.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:47 PM 10/10/98 +0100, Mike Stanton wrote:
>But that isn't the question implicit in my comments. My question is both
>narrower and broader: how does _The female man_ stand in comparison to
>works within the mainstream? Is it - relative to them - of high quality or
>of low quality? What are the reasons for your opinion? Is it the language
>or the font (to go from the sublime to the ridiculous)?
>
>Bloom (1995 p. 564) puts Ursula Le Guin's _The left hand of darkness_ in
>the Western Canon - deservedly so in my opinion. Are you suggesting that
>_The female man_ should be there? Why? Or if not why not?

How does one define "the mainstream" anyway? The term is pretty damn vague.
Maybe you could name names.

As for Bloom and the Western Canon -- I think you'll find that many on this
list don't particularly care about either. Some, like myself, find the very
idea of the Canon a unpleasant relic of cultural imperialism. Joanna Russ
has spent a good part of her career critiquing it. See particularly her
essays "Towards an Aesthetic of Science Fiction" in which she argues that
traditional literary criticism is not equipped to deal with science fiction
(Samuel Delany takes much the same position) and her book-length essay *How
to Suppress Women's Writing* (Bloom gets a mention on page 60).

-----
Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT
http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm
Listening to: Tricky -- Maxinquaye
"...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected;
the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and
servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:09:04 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a feminist hero
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.3.32.19981011183508.006bc388@hemlock.newcastle.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

 On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:

> I was wondering what peoples thought are on that charater from Tomb
> Raider.... damn it I cant remember her... hang on... Laura Croff.
> So what do people think of her... is she a good thing? Or not?
> For years Ive hated that most computer games only allow you to be a male
> character and show the female only as a thing to be saved, unless your
> playing something like that Barbie game!
> So what do people think or Laura Croff?

Laura Croft.  A British aristocrat turned archeologist, if I am not
mistaken, roaming the world in search of treasures, while solving puzzles
and battling various evil creatures.  Long hair in a braid and a pair of
humongous boobs.

As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple of women
in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.  Even though the
company that came up with it was so desperate to make the game marketable
to boys (apparently assuming that girls are only interested in virtual
makeovers and cute girly fairy-tale stuff), that they:

a) made her have a bust that would make Barbi look like flat. It
puzzles me how she manages to bounce around with those watermelons on her
chest, unless they are filled with helium or something.  At the same time,
since there are women wearing tripple-D bras, it won't be fair to say
that they cannot be superheroes, so I guess we cannot consider her
unbelievable just for that;

b) as the end of the game, as a prize to the player who manages to
complete all levels, she is pictured in a nightie, as opposed to her usual
shorts and a tank top;

c) the pathetic advertizing campaign of the Tomb Rider, struggling to
promote the "girl-hero" among the tough-guy action games (one of which
uses "Kill Laura Croft!" as its main slogan, by the way) puts the main
accent on the idea of Laura as the player's "playmate" of sorts.

For example, one of the game's creators explained in his interview with
the Newsweek that they did not want to release a multiplayer internet
version of Tomb Rider because it would "destroy the intimate connection
between the player and Laura" or something pretty damn close.  Another
example -- the TV commercial, "Tomb Rider: come where the boys are!"

In other words, the computer game industry so far would rather create a
thousand versions of virtual tea parties than admit, even in theory, that
girls might enjoy violent adventure games.  However, considering the fact
that half of the feminist community itself is adamant about proving at any
cost that women have a "different, gentler nature", it is hard to expect
the male-dominated industry to hold a more progressive view.  Since
even according to _women_, girls are supposed to be interested only in
peace, love, and the spirit of sisterhood as opposed to crude "male" fun
of butt-kicking, it is not suprising there is not one single action game
right now that would be directed at girl teenagers (well, maybe for the
exception of those who might be interested in seeing Laura Croft in her
lingerie).

This attitude is predominant not only in games, by the way, but in the
absolute majority of action movies, even those deemed feminist -- the only
possible "excuse" for a woman to get violent is to "protect a child".
By the way, since someone here mentioned Aliens, that scene where Ripley
says "Get away from her, bitch!" saving the poor little girl from the big
bad alien queen, is in my opinion, the most disgusting part of the whole
theme of the series.  It all comes down to the idea that no matter how
strong, smart, independent, and assertive a woman can be, her only purpose
is still to be (or play the role of) a protective mother.  Women just
cannot be concerned with anything other than taking care of children --
even in science fiction, and even in a feminist one (like, say, the Tank
Girl).  Could have just as well stayed in the kitchen and be mommies
there.

Hate to remind this to everybody, but violence is no more of "male" treat
than wearing pants, cutting one's hair short, and working outside the
house.  Each of these activities used to be (and still are to some people)
as "contrary" to "female nature" as physical assertiveness and
individualism is today to the significant part of the feminist movement.
It's hard to believe how many women consider figures like Joan of Ark (or
GI Jane, for that matter) nothing but "honorary males", whatever in the
Hell that means, as opposed to "true" female heroes that are supposed to
be feeding the poor, saving animals, and rallying for the world peace
while attending to their family duties.

It is true that women have not had that much opportunity to participate in
the political struggles and military conflicts in the recent
history.  Neighter they were allowed to wear pants and vote.  Does that
mean that the latter activities are also "unbecoming" of a woman?  How
exactly does physical fighting makes a woman more "mannish" than say,
being an engineer?

In my opinion -- and observations -- most women detest violence simply
because they were raised to believe that since they are "weaker" any
conflict is bound to result with them losing.  In other words, any
confrontation -- emotional, intellectual, or physical -- is automatically
associated with abuse.  To many women the idea that they can actually
win in a fight, be it a physical, political, or a business one, is
uncomprehensible.  If you believe that you can never win in a conflict, no
wonder you would hate the very idea of getting into one.  This fear is
thoroughly enforced by the society, making sure that those women who dare
to be strong are punished not only by the patriarchy in the face of men,
but also by women, including the "enlightened" ones.

The latter do believe in women's rights, but condemn the "too assertive"
women for choosing "unwomanly" ways of expressing their strength, and
exclude them from the women's cause.  Since the heroes of this sort are
not really women, they are "Schwartzeneggers in drag", they
cannot be feminist.  "Real" feminists are all environmentalist,
pacifistic, and community-oriented. And often more intolerant towards
"violent femmes" than men themselves.

I do realize than people are different.  Some like romance novels, others
prefer slasher movies.  However, the personal tastes (or more
likely distastes) towards certain things  do not make these things
non-feminist per se. Personally, I hated the ideas presented in Black Wine
(beautifully written as it was).  In my opinion, Ea's doing nothing to
save her family and Essa's walking away from her people after getting
them in trouble -- all for the sake of "not becoming like their enemies"
-- was selfish and irresponsible, to say the least.  It's the same as
watching your family slaughtered in front of your eyes and doing nothing
to stop the people who do that (by blowing off their heads if you have to)
because you "don't want to become like them".  The two main characters of
Black Wine, in my opinion, did exactly that.

However, just because the supposedly positive characters of Black Wine
were turning my stomach,  it did not make the book less feminist.  It had
strong female heroes. They might have been assholes, in my opinion, but
they still promoted the feminist idea of women as people, instead of the
usual sex symbol / mother props they are pictured as in mainstream
fiction. So, feminist it was.

You know, when people declare something non-feminist just because it does
not fit in their ideal of feminism "as it should be", it looks just like
the attitude of religious fanatics towards the things they don't like.
Those never say that _they_ don't like something -- be it rock music
or abortions -- or that it is against their beliefs, they say that it is
against God.  The same is when some feminists do not like the idea of
women asserting their strength in certain way (say, by going to a war,
or becoming a successful politician/businessperson). They don't simply
say "I would not do this, because I am against violence / not interested
in political games". They say: "The women who do it are not feminist
figures, their are nothing more than male heroes in drag".

Marina,

whose favorite childhood toy was a gun, to get which she had to throw a
fit in the store to convince her shocked grandfather that it was really
something she wanted, despite her "being a girl".

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 19:38:09 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,
              and the wrong types of a feminist hero
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/11/98 11:20:32 PM, Marina wrote:

<< _women_, girls are supposed to be interested only in
peace, love, and the spirit of sisterhood as opposed to crude "male" fun
of butt-kicking, >>

and

<<By the way, since someone here mentioned Aliens, that scene where Ripley
says "Get away from her, bitch!" saving the poor little girl from the big
bad alien queen, is in my opinion, the most disgusting part of the whole
theme of the series.>>

I agree  with a lot of your post.  I think some women still find it difficult
to identify their own physical-response strengths.  I clipped the two above,
because I agree with the first and I'm the "someone' of the second.  A healthy
young animal as a child, I played with guns, too.  I'm a crack, award-winning
woman with a shotgun at skeet-shooting.  And I'm a lowly yellow-belt Tae Kwon
Do.  Am I violent?  No.  Do I like to feel strong, feel my body moving in
space strongly.  Yes.  Do I care that these things are said to be "masculine."
Hell no.

At the same time, I am aware of and constantly working with my nurturing self,
which I would deny at my peril.  Been there; done that.  I'm not a man, nor
masculine.  I'm a strong woman who can handle the technology of violence
without using it, and without WANTING to use it.  Maybe that's just for me.

A slippery slope to be sure.

I still like Ripley's "bitch" line.  I like to think I would have protected
the kid.

best wishes,
phoebe
zozie@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:55:23 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Candioglos, Sandy" <sandy.candioglos@INTEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a femin ist hero
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU]
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 4:09 PM
> To:   FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [*FSFFU*] Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a
> feminist hero
>
        <snip>

        > As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple
of women
        > in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.

        <snip>

        One of my all-time favorite video games is Toshinden; there are two
female charcters; one is too annoyingly cute for my tastes (the little one
with the green hair and the squeaky voice), but the other one is MY
character.  Sonya(sp?) is awesome; she's got a whip that'll kick anybody's
butt; I learned her so well, I could go against the big bad-ass master dude
at the end of the game on the hardest setting, and win (on the Japanese
version; we have a Japanese playstation).  She's cool.  She also wouldn't be
caught dead in a nightie. :)

        There's also Virtua Fighter, on the Saturn, which also has a couple
of cool female characters; Pai and Sarah.  I didn't get quite as into that
game, but I did like playing Pai.  In that game, they don't have weapons;
it's all hand-to-hand.

        Granted, in each of these game, there are about 8 or 10 different
characters to choose from, and out of that, there are two females.  *sigh*.
At least there are a couple, and they can hold their own, in skilled hands.
:)

        I agree with what you said about Laura, though; I wasn't aware that
the "reward" for winning was her appearing in a nightie; that's pretty
obnoxious.

          -Sandy
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:44:02 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jennifer Krauel <jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM>
Subject:      BDG: voting results
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

With 58 people voting, the results for the January - April books are now in:

January Brown Girl in the Ring
February        Female Man
March           Fisherman of the Inland Sea
April           Jaran

Note these are the books receiving the most votes, and in alphabetical
order by title.  There's been some discussion about picking something
"light" to discuss in January -- if the group wants to alter the order,
let's talk about that.

Each of these books is available today.  In the event one of them becomes
unavailable we can deal with it at the time.  For the Le Guin book, her
Four Ways title also received a lot of votes, so it would be
straightforward to substitute that one.

In the meantime, this should provide ample notice for all participants to
find copies of these books.  Don't forget your local independent
bookseller, or Maryelizabeth's discount through her Mysterious Galaxy
store.  See http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/bdg/ for more information.

The next nomination/voting period will be in February.
Thanks so much to Petra and Terri for their help with this.  Petra, we
should update the web page!
Jennifer
jkrauel@actioneer.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:58:15 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         SMCharnas <suzych@HIGHFIBER.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Marina wrote:

>in the
>absolute majority of action movies, even those deemed feminist -- the only
>possible "excuse" for a woman to get violent is to "protect a child".

Just saw an episode of a TV psy-fi series called Chronicles of the Paranormal
or something like that in which, at the climax, the woman member of the
psi-investigative team having been taken hostage by the bad guys as a guar-
antee of the delivery of some nerve gas they want to use to bring down the
govt, she gets partially loose and threatens to release the catalyst to
the nerve gas, which she happens to have in her pocket.  This would of
course result in her own death as well.  The chief bad guy laughs at her
and says women don't know how to bluff; she smashes the flask and releases
the deadly poison, and says to him with the blood of gas-caused hemmorhage
running out of her nose (as is true of him as well), "Nobody uses me."

And no, she does not die to punish her for defending herself; they all get
saved.  But it was an interesting moment, involving no children, and a
statement by the heroine that she is defending her own honor, not the fate
of the world.

I thought it was an interesting moment of courage and self-assertion in a
medium that is sometimes more aware and more daring than its big brother, film.

Suzy
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:27:23 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Julieanne * <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,and the wrong types of a feminist hero
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.A41.4.03.9810111501550.42382-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:09 PM 10/11/98 -0500, Marina wrote:

>As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple of women
>in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.  Even though the
>company that came up with it was so desperate to make the game marketable
>to boys (apparently assuming that girls are only interested in virtual
>makeovers and cute girly fairy-tale stuff), ..[snip]..

My favourite female game characters are in the games _WarCraft_ and its
sequel _StarCraft_. In the latter, the female character is also black with
*attitude*:) In the more advanced levels, she is betrayed/sacrificed by
another male character - despite having been the primary hero in some of
the earlier levels. But both of these games are not traditional shoot-em-up
action games, and the player controls groups of characters, with the focus
more on team-work and problem-solving, co-ordinating the
characters/troops/weaponry with different strengths and weaknesses. As an
avid woman games-player, I personally prefer multi-character games, and see
it more as an issue of "individual hero(ine)" versus 'team participation',
rather than a gender issue.

Julieanne
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:17:24 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Danielle Moulton <dmoult10@CHEC.SCU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marina wrote:
> in the absolute majority of action movies, even those deemed feminist --
> the only possible "excuse" for a woman to get violent is to "protect a
child".

There were a few pleasant surprises on the weekend when i saw "Blade" (
with Wesley Snipes and Stephen Dorf - It was supposed to be a vampire movie
but was actually more of an action.)

The female love interest was initially non-violent but very soon changed
her ways! There was one scene especially where she and Wesley had
just finished getting information out of a "jabba" lookalike vampire, and
she was the one who ended up indulging in gratuitous violence involving an
ultra-violet light, burning flesh and tortured screams. Wesley turns around
and looks at her. "He moved" was her careless explanation.

It was only noteworthy for me because otherwise it was a very standard
mainstream action movie, and it was nice to see that the women were allowed
to be just as bad as the men. (if still only secondary)

One small step at a time?

Danielle
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:54:49 +0200
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elethiomel <adaldan@TIN.IT>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,
              and the wrong types of a feminist hero
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 12-10-1998 1:09, Marina said:

> "Real" feminists are all environmentalist,
>pacifistic, and community-oriented.

And don't forget they're against "hard, imperialistic" science while
they're pro social sciences. Against sf (unless it's based on thoroughly
soft sciences like, say, anthropology) and pro fantasy.


Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel

Anna esta' en la linea
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:09:27 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      OT CATA
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 8 Oct 98, at 13:51, Allyson Shaw wrote

> For those of us who don't know what "CATA" is (me)
> can you give a *short* explanation.

CATA (Computer Aided Text Analysis) is based on the premise that an
individual writer has a writing style that can be identified through
(relatively) simple measurements of characteristics of his writing. These
characteristics include the occurrence of particular words or phrases,
sentence length, sentence construction, punctuation styles and others. A
'profile' of a writer can then be prepared using statistical techniques
such as factor or correspondence analysis. A series of profiles may be
needed because a writer's style may change somewhat through her life.

Another form of CATA involves analysing the content or meaning of texts,
something that's widely used in the analysis of news reports and so on.
Roughly the same techniques but involving dictionaries and wordlists are
used.

To check if a particular writer wrote a specific piece of work, the
disputed work is analysed; the resulting profile is compared statistically
with that for the writer concerned and the 'distance' between them
calculated. The probability that the writer concerned wrote the text tested
can be statistically estimated from this 'distance'. It is also possible to
detect whether two writers (either as collaborators or as writer/editor)
worked on the same piece. The influence of one writer on another can also
sometimes be highlighted using this technique.

The theory, and thus the software, for CATA is in its infancy. It's thus
usually necessary for texts to be partially analyzed (or pre-processed);
this involves marking ('tagging') words, phrases and so on. Many workers
write their own software; the one we wrote, for example, is called 'Bede'.
The problem, as always, is the complexity of human languages and the dearth
of useable quantitative theories; as Natural Language Processing research
develops, CATA techniques should also improve.

CATA bears the same relationship to literary theory as a fingerprint does
to theories of the physiology of the hand. A fingerprint uniquely
identifies a particular hand, but it says nothing about how that hand works
and what it can be used for.

As with all computerized techniques, the potential for misuse is great.



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
___________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:39:25 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Joe Sutliff Sanders <jcsand1@POP.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,
              and the wrong types of a feminist hero
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:38 PM 10/11/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 10/11/98 11:20:32 PM, Marina wrote:
><<By the way, since someone here mentioned Aliens, that scene where Ripley
>says "Get away from her, bitch!" saving the poor little girl from the big
>bad alien queen, is in my opinion, the most disgusting part of the whole
>theme of the series.>>
>
>I still like Ripley's "bitch" line.  I like to think I would have protected
>the kid.
>

        What bothers me the most about this issue is that it's a no-win situation.
 Here's what I mean:
        Of _course_ we should protect the kid.  Phoebe is absolutely right to
think that the child, symbol of humanity's future, yadda yadda yadda,
should be protected.  However, the movie seems to imply that it is proper
and perhaps laudable for one female to demean another in terms that express
contempt for her that can only be used to denigrate women.  If the
screenwriter's idea was that Ripley invoke humanity's superiority over the
unknown by having Ripley curse, then how about, "Get away from her,
fucker!"  Does that seem less powerful?  Possibly.  Is it less
gender-specific?  Obviously.
        It seems to me that what happens here is that the movie sets up and
praises the idea of one female using a patriarchal curse to rob another
female of power.  I also feel, but won't argue here, that this is a case of
Hollywood encouraging a schism between empowered females in our society.  I
won't argue it here because I don't have the theory on hand to support it
thoroughly, but I still believe it.

Joe

ps:  I think the video game character's name is -Lara- Croft, but I can't
remember for sure.  God forbid we spell her name wrong.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:44:57 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elizabeth Burton <PBEK@AUSTINTX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,
              and the wrong types of a feminist hero
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>Since even according to _women_, girls are supposed to be interested only
in peace, love, and the spirit of sisterhood as opposed to crude "male" fun
of butt-kicking, <

Which, if I may play Devil's advocate, also presumes that all *males* are
committed to acts of violence. This kind of stereotyping does no one any
good.

Lisa
Xanadu Scriveners
http://members.tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html
Pager
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062745
ICQ SFF Writers' Group
http://groups.icq.com/group.asp?no=409617
The Dance of Light and Magic
http://www.delphi.com/Castle_of_Light
-----Original Message-----
From: Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Date: Sunday, October 11, 1998 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a
feminist hero


> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:
>
>> I was wondering what peoples thought are on that charater from Tomb
>> Raider.... damn it I cant remember her... hang on... Laura Croff.
>> So what do people think of her... is she a good thing? Or not?
>> For years Ive hated that most computer games only allow you to be a male
>> character and show the female only as a thing to be saved, unless your
>> playing something like that Barbie game!
>> So what do people think or Laura Croff?
>
>Laura Croft.  A British aristocrat turned archeologist, if I am not
>mistaken, roaming the world in search of treasures, while solving puzzles
>and battling various evil creatures.  Long hair in a braid and a pair of
>humongous boobs.
>
>As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple of women
>in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.  Even though the
>company that came up with it was so desperate to make the game marketable
>to boys (apparently assuming that girls are only interested in virtual
>makeovers and cute girly fairy-tale stuff), that they:
>
>a) made her have a bust that would make Barbi look like flat. It
>puzzles me how she manages to bounce around with those watermelons on her
>chest, unless they are filled with helium or something.  At the same time,
>since there are women wearing tripple-D bras, it won't be fair to say
>that they cannot be superheroes, so I guess we cannot consider her
>unbelievable just for that;
>
>b) as the end of the game, as a prize to the player who manages to
>complete all levels, she is pictured in a nightie, as opposed to her usual
>shorts and a tank top;
>
>c) the pathetic advertizing campaign of the Tomb Rider, struggling to
>promote the "girl-hero" among the tough-guy action games (one of which
>uses "Kill Laura Croft!" as its main slogan, by the way) puts the main
>accent on the idea of Laura as the player's "playmate" of sorts.
>
>For example, one of the game's creators explained in his interview with
>the Newsweek that they did not want to release a multiplayer internet
>version of Tomb Rider because it would "destroy the intimate connection
>between the player and Laura" or something pretty damn close.  Another
>example -- the TV commercial, "Tomb Rider: come where the boys are!"
>
>In other words, the computer game industry so far would rather create a
>thousand versions of virtual tea parties than admit, even in theory, that
>girls might enjoy violent adventure games.  However, considering the fact
>that half of the feminist community itself is adamant about proving at any
>cost that women have a "different, gentler nature", it is hard to expect
>the male-dominated industry to hold a more progressive viewit is not
suprising there is not one single action game
>right now that would be directed at girl teenagers (well, maybe for the
>exception of those who might be interested in seeing Laura Croft in her
>lingerie).
>
>This attitude is predominant not only in games, by the way, but in the
>absolute majority of action movies, even those deemed feminist -- the only
>possible "excuse" for a woman to get violent is to "protect a child".
>By the way, since someone here mentioned Aliens, that scene where Ripley
>says "Get away from her, bitch!" saving the poor little girl from the big
>bad alien queen, is in my opinion, the most disgusting part of the whole
>theme of the series.  It all comes down to the idea that no matter how
>strong, smart, independent, and assertive a woman can be, her only purpose
>is still to be (or play the role of) a protective mother.  Women just
>cannot be concerned with anything other than taking care of children --
>even in science fiction, and even in a feminist one (like, say, the Tank
>Girl).  Could have just as well stayed in the kitchen and be mommies
>there.
>
>Hate to remind this to everybody, but violence is no more of "male" treat
>than wearing pants, cutting one's hair short, and working outside the
>house.  Each of these activities used to be (and still are to some people)
>as "contrary" to "female nature" as physical assertiveness and
>individualism is today to the significant part of the feminist movement.
>It's hard to believe how many women consider figures like Joan of Ark (or
>GI Jane, for that matter) nothing but "honorary males", whatever in the
>Hell that means, as opposed to "true" female heroes that are supposed to
>be feeding the poor, saving animals, and rallying for the world peace
>while attending to their family duties.
>
>It is true that women have not had that much opportunity to participate in
>the political struggles and military conflicts in the recent
>history.  Neighter they were allowed to wear pants and vote.  Does that
>mean that the latter activities are also "unbecoming" of a woman?  How
>exactly does physical fighting makes a woman more "mannish" than say,
>being an engineer?
>
>In my opinion -- and observations -- most women detest violence simply
>because they were raised to believe that since they are "weaker" any
>conflict is bound to result with them losing.  In other words, any
>confrontation -- emotional, intellectual, or physical -- is automatically
>associated with abuse.  To many women the idea that they can actually
>win in a fight, be it a physical, political, or a business one, is
>uncomprehensible.  If you believe that you can never win in a conflict, no
>wonder you would hate the very idea of getting into one.  This fear is
>thoroughly enforced by the society, making sure that those women who dare
>to be strong are punished not only by the patriarchy in the face of men,
>but also by women, including the "enlightened" ones.
>
>The latter do believe in women's rights, but condemn the "too assertive"
>women for choosing "unwomanly" ways of expressing their strength, and
>exclude them from the women's cause.  Since the heroes of this sort are
>not really women, they are "Schwartzeneggers in drag", they
>cannot be feminist.  "Real" feminists are all environmentalist,
>pacifistic, and community-oriented. And often more intolerant towards
>"violent femmes" than men themselves.
>
>I do realize than people are different.  Some like romance novels, others
>prefer slasher movies.  However, the personal tastes (or more
>likely distastes) towards certain things  do not make these things
>non-feminist per se. Personally, I hated the ideas presented in Black Wine
>(beautifully written as it was).  In my opinion, Ea's doing nothing to
>save her family and Essa's walking away from her people after getting
>them in trouble -- all for the sake of "not becoming like their enemies"
>-- was selfish and irresponsible, to say the least.  It's the same as
>watching your family slaughtered in front of your eyes and doing nothing
>to stop the people who do that (by blowing off their heads if you have to)
>because you "don't want to become like them".  The two main characters of
>Black Wine, in my opinion, did exactly that.
>
>However, just because the supposedly positive characters of Black Wine
>were turning my stomach,  it did not make the book less feminist.  It had
>strong female heroes. They might have been assholes, in my opinion, but
>they still promoted the feminist idea of women as people, instead of the
>usual sex symbol / mother props they are pictured as in mainstream
>fiction. So, feminist it was.
>
>You know, when people declare something non-feminist just because it does
>not fit in their ideal of feminism "as it should be", it looks just like
>the attitude of religious fanatics towards the things they don't like.
>Those never say that _they_ don't like something -- be it rock music
>or abortions -- or that it is against their beliefs, they say that it is
>against God.  The same is when some feminists do not like the idea of
>women asserting their strength in certain way (say, by going to a war,
>or becoming a successful politician/businessperson). They don't simply
>say "I would not do this, because I am against violence / not interested
>in political games". They say: "The women who do it are not feminist
>figures, their are nothing more than male heroes in drag".
>
>Marina,
>
>whose favorite childhood toy was a gun, to get which she had to throw a
>fit in the store to convince her shocked grandfather that it was really
>something she wanted, despite her "being a girl".
>
>http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
>
>                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
>                        is selling at the time."
>                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:49:20 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Robin Reid <Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU>
Subject:      Alien movies--feminist or not?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Julieanne asked:  "What do readers of the FSFFU list think? Are there any
deeper feminist or anti-feminist messages in these films? Or is the
character of Ripley just a
simple gender-reversal of traditional action-genre films? - similar to GI
Jane etc?  [or as one of my students put it: - "Arnold Swharzenegger in drag"]"

I have a multiple layer message:  I remember reading a batch of essays about
ten years ago that wildly enthused about the character of Ripley as a major
feminist creation in SF--at the same time I never went to see the movies
because I am a Wimp when it comes to some forms of screen violence--a few
years ago, a housemate of mine (who is NOT a feminist but who everybody at
our campus assumes is because she's a woman in medieval history teaching on
the university level) who loves Horror movies managed to convince me to see
#4.  Because I am a obsessive compulsive completist, I could not see #4 had
I not seen the first three (oh please don't even ask), so we watched them on
video.  She warned me when the icky parts were coming up so I could not
watch.  Since the films are rather *ahem* formulaic, by the time the fourth
one came up, I was able to see the telegraphing of the icky parts and not
watch.

Feminist or not--a complex question.  Some feminists would say NOT because
they are commited to the philosophical position that women are more
pacifist/less violent than men--the essentialist view that leads to the
"drag" comment.  Other would say (as the essays on the first film did) that
in fact, yes, Ripley is a feminist character, at least, even if the films
are not.  (Fairly male dominated in terms of writing, production, direction,
etc.--not to say men cannot be feminists, but those films do not seem to be
AIMED at a feminist audience.)  Yes, there are strong women:  the female
marine (cannot remember her name), Ripley herself throughout (even rescuing
a girl child and kitties), and the whole interaction between the cloned
Ripley and Winona Ryder's character (I am bad at names) in the last one.
And lots of crummy men (see below).

I also remember all the hoohah about the "feminism" of _Thelma and Louise_
when I did a paper in a seminar about how that film got trashed by critics
(and by extension feminism was trashed as well) while the Linda Hamilton
character in the last _Terminator_ film killed many more people and was
prepared to blow up the world--but that violence was "acceptable" I argued
becasue she was saving her (male) child.  Women fighting to defend
themselves against rape is NOT acceptable violence.  The question of
violence and women, and women action heroes is still up for debate.  My
favorite new show is _Xena:  Warrior Princess_ -- feminist or not?  Some say
yes, some no.

I am not saying any of these films are or are not feminist--before that can
be settled, what the user means by "feminism" has to be defined.  But they
all show some interesting things about gender roles--ours and our
cultures--and what we "expect" from women.

Since Ripley is a hybrid by the fourth movie, not "human" anymore, it also
becomes an interesting question of how human is she....I also noticed that
throughout the series "men" tended to be the villains as well as the
occasinal hero....not very flattering portrayals of men.  I'm not sure
that's officially feminist either, but it's interesting to examine.

Robin
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:30:56 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jane Franklin <JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Several (admittedly funny) recent posts seem to be setting up almost a
name-calling situation....there's "us", the hip modern feminists who like
violence, science, and science fiction, and then there's "them", the
boring stodgy old semi-feminists who like unicorns and moonlight and the
social sciences.  Forgive me for saying this, but the whole thing seems a
little silly.

Even reading Joanna Russ should put paid to this duality--she's old school
and can careen from violent to mushy so fast it makes your head spin.  
And what about women peace activists?  Living here in Minnesota, I know a
whole mess of them from Women Against Military Madness, and believe me
they are a bunch of tough old broads.  I am very suspicious of this
stereotype of horrid mush-brained PC feminists, simply because I have
never met any.  I think they're a construct of the media, a construct that
we are all supposed to spend time debunking and separating ourselves from,
instead of doing something useful.

In fact, I'm a little wary of getting all hepped up about the wonders of
violence just to prove how equal we are.  True, women should be able to be
as violent as men, women should not fear physical conflict, and the
denunciation of violence as a strategy just because it's "male" is silly.  
But it seems like it's pretty easy to tip over into holding up violence as
an ideal for its own sake.  Sure, there are some things about violence
that are nice--soccer, martial arts, being able to protect yourself.

But it's not unfeminist to dislike hitting people.  It's not unfeminist to
dislike movies that are stupidly violent.  It's not unfeminist to dislike
war.  And I happen to like fantasy novels, in moderation.  Any behavior I
share with men, I will share because I choose that behavior, not because I
want to be like men .

How many people on this list have been seriously discommoded by some old
school PC feminist?  I'm not going to make fun of an ideology I've never
encountered in person, just to prove that I'm not part of it.

(Excuse the...ahem..violence of this post.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:18:54 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/12/98 2:31:17 PM, you wrote:

<<Any behavior I share with men, I will share because I choose that behavior,
not because I want to be like men .>>

Amen, sister.

Smiling,
phoebe
zozie@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:19:04 -0400
Reply-To:     ligeia@concentric.net
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Lilith <ligeia@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc.
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jane Franklin said:


> I am very suspicious of this stereotype of horrid mush-brained PC
> feminists, simply because I have never met any.  I think they're a construct of
> the media, a construct that we are all supposed to spend time debunking and
> separating ourselves from, instead of doing something useful.
>
That may well be....I actually think the "nurturing, pacifist" feminist
isn't a feminist at all, but a Traditional Woman in New Age clothing. At
least, from the examples I have met in real life. Sad to say many women
nowadays say things like 'I'm not a feminist," though not all of them
think of men as superior! (In fact, many of these non-feminists are
condescending towards men, in that age old
the-poor-dumb-dears-exist-to-be-manipulated way.)  But I've heard a lot
of that "women are nurturing, peaceful, blah, blah" from women like
this.  They also say things like "women can't be President, they are too
emotional" etc.  I think maybe somehow the media has confused feminists
with new-ageist and/or traditional women and so now we have this
steroeotype of the "peaceful woman."

Lilith, who is definitely not a nurturing female.



--
"That's 'Dr. Evil'; I didn't go to evil school for six years just to be
called 'Mister.'"
-- from Austin Powers -- Man of Mystery
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:05:47 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anthea Hartley Stanton <ajhs@USA.NET>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think that the "Ripley" in each of the _Alien_ series was different from her
predecessor(s) and more than anything else reflected the director's developing
style.

Ripley in _Alien_ was, I think, the prototype for Ridley Scott's archetypal
heroine - intelligent, independent, honest, caring and strong without
arrogance but - in my opinion - sexless, almost androgynous. His "heroine
type" developed through _Blade Runner_ reached a peak in _Thelma & Louise_
then degenerated into the rather silly commercial "machismo" of _G I Jane_.

In _Aliens_ on the other hand I think that James Cameron deliberately
emphasised the motherhood theme. There was, for example, the mention (in the
director's cut version) of Ripley's own child who had died during Ripley's 57
years in hibernation. This was rubbed in by the inclusion of the child Newt
and Ripley's desperate affection for her, Ripley's vigorous defence of the
child during the facehugger scene in the med lab, and the direct conflict over
their respective 'children' between the human 'mother' and the alien 'mother'
in the atmospheric processor and on the _Sulaco_.

But no one could possibly suggest that Cameron's Ripley was sexless - strong,
yes, but a strong, sexy female. Cameron continued this theme when he made
_Terminator II_'s Sarah Connor, a powerful, almost masculine, figure who's
also a loving mother. I don't think the _Aliens_' Ripley was nowhere near
"Schwartzenegger in drag" but Sarah Connor was certainly heading that way.
Cameron promptly changed tack with his heroines in _The Abyss_, _True Lies_
and _Titanic_.

Elethiomel mentioned the "marked Conradian feeling to the whole thing". It was
a lot more than that; the names of the ships (_Nostromo_ and _Sulaco_) in
_Alien_ and _Aliens_ were only two of the outrageously obvious attempts to
create a Conradian atmosphere.

The last two Ripleys (David Fincher's & Jean-Pierre Jeunet's efforts) had - I
thought - little connection with the other two. I didn't know quite what to
make of Alien3's Ripley; I found the overblown motherhood theme (she carried
one of the aliens) and the silly sex scene confusing as if the director didn't
know which way to go.

Alien4's Ripley was - I think - not so much "Schwartzenegger" as "Stallone in
drag" but in any case the essential Ripley of the first 2 was gone. The
motherhood theme must have been the reason for casting her as the 'mother' of
the Alien queen (the monstrous 'childbirth' scene must surely be the ultimate
sick joke) and 'grandmother' of a risible human/Alien hydrid. I'm sure that
Jeunet must have had some deep Freudian reason for having Ripley's
'grandchild' die by being sucked through a small hole.





AJ
Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net)
__________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:15:12 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jessie Stickgold-Sarah <jss@PA.DEC.COM>
Subject:      feminism and violence
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>the Linda Hamilton
>character in the last _Terminator_ film killed many more people and was
>prepared to blow up the world--but that violence was "acceptable" I argued
>becasue she was saving her (male) child.

I *loved* Linda Hamilton. I saw _Terminator II_ solely because of the scene in
the preview in which she's staggering through some series of catwalks with
this absolutely massive gun, and she advances it (?? those of you who know the
correct terminology or, in fact, what is really going on can supply the right
word, I don't really care) by snapping it down. Her muscles bulge. I remember
her snarling, though that may not be accurate. It was pretty much love at
first sight. (And then the movie opens with her doing chin-ups. I can't even
do *one* chin-up; I have bad wrists. God! I was so happy.) Anyway, I don't
really remember a thing about the three main male characters, except one
moment of the little boy yelling in horror, "You can't *kill* people! Don't
kill anyone else!"

On the other hand, I went with a friend who'd seen it before, so he could warn
me about when the gross bits came along. I can't stand it. I saw Aliens when I
was ten and I had horrible nightmares about spiders for two weeks. I believe
very strongly that violence is fundamentally bad, even though there may be
times when it's needed to prevent something worse. I'd be violent in an
instant to protect myself from attack. I loved the image of this kick-butt,
totally independant, amazingly competant, absolutely self-assured woman
advancing from point A to point B and doing whatever it took to get there.

But it's a *movie*. It's absolutely escapist. Many of the values exhibited in
it are abhorrent and, I would go so far as to say, yucky to me. It's possible
to rejoice in the freedom given to this female character, to be thrilled at
the fact that she's breaking away from many of the imposed cultural norms, and
yet not actually want those things to happen. It's very hard for me to watch
typical blood-and-gore movies with male heros because there's *nothing* to
distract me from the fact that it's just people killing each other all over
the place. That's not because I'm female. That's not because I think I'd lose
in any fight -- I don't. It's because I believe that violence is often wrong.
And if believing that is a "womanish" way to think, then good on us. (And my
father, and my brother, and my uncles, and my husband...it just doesn't wash
for me.)

jessie
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:23:32 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Tessa Vaughn <tessa@IO.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG: _Shadow Man_
In-Reply-To:  <UPMAIL14.199810111127300950@classic.msn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Lesley Hall wrote:

> Having finally managed to disinter and re-read my copy of this, I found myself
> struck by the way in which Mhyre Tatian still uses gender as a model for
> assumptions about individuals: i.e. even though there are 5 accepted genders
> people aren't regarded as individuals but as 'woman, man, fem, mem or herm'.

Some people seem surprised at this, but I was not.  In fact, I applauded
Scott on her incorporation of this.  It seems a characteristic of humanity
to really need (as Lesley says) their "pigeonholes".  Tatian doesn't
break out of this train of thought.  He's been trained to see these 5
genders as being based on physiology, i.e, body determines
characteristics.  Sad, but certainly how many people view gender today.

I found Raven to be the most interesting because zhe wasn't concerned so
much about what gender a person was but what they were like.  Something I
wish everyone did!  I found it interesting that although zhe was
comfortable being a herm, zhe continued to identify zheself as a man.
Even at the end, it seems.  Raven became the leader, in a sense, more
because zhe wanted people to be able to identify themselves as they saw
fit.  Or, am I totally off the wall here? <g>  That, I really appreciated
because it doesn't matter how many *physical* genders there are, what is
more important is, how a person thinks of themselves and how much of the
societal view of gender do they want to take?  Because, that's what gender
really is.  Not *just* the genitalia but also the characteristics that
have been assigned, by society, to each 'sex'.

> appropriateness), and perhaps she was also making the point that having 5
> pigeonholes to slot people into isn't really that much of an advance over 2.


I thought this was exactly the point she was making here.

Tessa
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:31:25 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/12/98 12:46:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dmoult10@CHEC.SCU.EDU.AU writes:

<< It was only noteworthy for me because otherwise it was a very standard
 mainstream action movie, and it was nice to see that the women were allowed
 to be just as bad as the men. (if still only secondary)

 One small step at a time?
  >>


Does anyone besides me have some small qualms about whether the ability to
humorously apply torture is a step in the right direction?  I just finished
"The rape of Nanking"  by Iris Chang.  There is one incredible photo where a
young man is kneeling, his shirt torn off his shoulders, waiting to be
beheaded.  The soldiers in the background are laughing.

Do we need this?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:34:09 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/12/98 2:15:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
suzych@HIGHFIBER.COM writes:

<< I thought it was an interesting moment of courage and self-assertion in a
 medium that is sometimes more aware and more daring than its big brother,
film. >>


I feel so old.  Why should we be brought into the same sickness (solving
problems with violence and feeling good about it) that has been a male plague
on the world for a couple of thousand years?  One can be strong, wise,
honerable, and affective without violence.  I refuse to buy into this.

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:42:16 +0000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Allyson Shaw <allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: OT CATA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you for the interesting explanation.  Being a technophobe, I found
the idea kind of creepy, but below, you describe it quite persuasively.
I like this analogy you use:

> CATA bears the same relationship to literary theory as a fingerprint does
> to theories of the physiology of the hand. A fingerprint uniquely
> identifies a particular hand, but it says nothing about how that hand works
> and what it can be used for.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:15:16 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a feminist hero
In-Reply-To:  <573f5940.36214161@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I agree  with a lot of your post.  I think some women still find it difficult
>to identify their own physical-response strengths.  I clipped the two above,
>because I agree with the first and I'm the "someone' of the second.  A
healthy
>young animal as a child, I played with guns, too.  I'm a crack, award-winning
>woman with a shotgun at skeet-shooting.  And I'm a lowly yellow-belt Tae Kwon
>Do.  Am I violent?  No.  Do I like to feel strong, feel my body moving in
>space strongly.  Yes.  Do I care that these things are said to be
"masculine."
>Hell no.

I dont think theres anything wrong in butt kicking *grin*... but seriously,
when its your life on the line I dont have any problems with defending
myslef. I also did tae kwon do for a while, as well as Karata, Kendo and
just general self defense. And I really enjoyed them. (especially Kendo
which is the origins of light saber dueling in SW *grin*) Next Im taking up
kick boxing.
Ive found though that my interest in these have led to a persona being
created, not so much by myself, but by others. Everytime Im introduced to
someone by a friend and they say something slightly insulting or stupid, my
friends warn them "Careful, she'll kick you face in for that"
?????
Just because out of all of my friends Im the only one who enjoy these
sport, if you want to call them that, I have a reputation of being nasty,
violent and dangerous!!!
But when I am in a situation where perhaps a male might just deck the
person... I walk away... or Im calm and fight with words!... and on the 3
occasions in my life where that has not work... then HELL! I defended myself.
One time a guy just grabbed my wrist for a little comment I made, I gave
him a warning, he didnt let go, do I defended myself and broke his hold. Is
that violent? When other women might just keep saying please let go and
back down from the orginal argument??? I dont think so?
I dont think Im a violent person. Im just a person who is willing to defend
themselves if I have to.

Anyway... just thought I would mention it.. made me think..



~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:17:22 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a femin ist hero
In-Reply-To:  <A96613FBFCC8D111AC3F00A0C96B5401E50606@FMSMSX42>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Your kidding? She wears a nighty if you win???????? Thats sick! well...
sexist anyway! Thanks for that... Ill be putting it in my disitation for sure.

At 17:55 11/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 4:09 PM
>> To:   FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>> Subject:      Re: [*FSFFU*] Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a
>> feminist hero
>>
>        <snip>
>
>        > As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple
>of women
>        > in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.
>
>        <snip>
>
>        One of my all-time favorite video games is Toshinden; there are two
>female charcters; one is too annoyingly cute for my tastes (the little one
>with the green hair and the squeaky voice), but the other one is MY
>character.  Sonya(sp?) is awesome; she's got a whip that'll kick anybody's
>butt; I learned her so well, I could go against the big bad-ass master dude
>at the end of the game on the hardest setting, and win (on the Japanese
>version; we have a Japanese playstation).  She's cool.  She also wouldn't be
>caught dead in a nightie. :)
>
>        There's also Virtua Fighter, on the Saturn, which also has a couple
>of cool female characters; Pai and Sarah.  I didn't get quite as into that
>game, but I did like playing Pai.  In that game, they don't have weapons;
>it's all hand-to-hand.
>
>        Granted, in each of these game, there are about 8 or 10 different
>characters to choose from, and out of that, there are two females.  *sigh*.
>At least there are a couple, and they can hold their own, in skilled hands.
>:)
>
>        I agree with what you said about Laura, though; I wasn't aware that
>the "reward" for winning was her appearing in a nightie; that's pretty
>obnoxious.
>
>          -Sandy
>
>

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:21:37 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft,
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.A41.4.03.9810111501550.42382-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

See Ive never played Tomb Raider. But Ive been playing computer games since
the first green screen apple came out with pac man and space invaders. And
I hate that every character is a guy. I really like Wing Commander...
but... your a guy rescuing the girl. I LOVE the SW games... but... your a
guy rescuing a girl. You can be Han, Luke, even Chewie... but not Leia!

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:23:55 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley, and the wrong types of a feminist hero
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.32.19981012093925.0090f640@pop.uky.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Yeah its Lara.... but Im dislexic... dont even think I spelt that right
*grin*

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:38:52 +0100
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Mike Stanton <m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 12 Oct 98, at 12:05, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote:

> But no one could possibly suggest that Cameron's Ripley was sexless -
> strong, yes, but a strong, sexy female. Cameron continued this theme when
> he made _Terminator II_'s Sarah Connor, a powerful, almost masculine,
> figure who's also a loving mother.

I think that all of the directors - especially James Cameron - were simply
trying to select the most commercially successful type of heroine - one who
would "punch the right buttons" in his target audience. If anything, I
think that they were all - and again especially Cameron - un-feminist if
not actually anti-feminist.

Although I enjoyed _Aliens_ I thought it was "sexploitive" - that the
director deliberately emphasised Ripley's sexiness (I almost said
sexuality) to increase the commercial appeal of the film. I'd find it
difficult to give chapter and verse since it was done so skilfully, but
that's _my_ opinion. A couple of months later, I saw _Halfmoon Street_ also
starring Sigourney Weaver which was much more blatantly sexploitive but
which didn't leave me with the same faintly unpleasant after-taste.

Similarly for _Terminator 2: Judgment Day_ (1991): Cameron altered the
character of Sarah Connor from a "normal" person in _Terminator_ (which he
also directed) to a obsessive-compulsive, anorexic killer; this time of
course her sexuality was de-emphasised. Evidently the after-screening
market research showed that many more viewers were repelled by the "new"
Sarah than were attracted. Hence the change in "heroine" type in _True
Lies_ that Anthea  commented on.

In _Titanic_, Cameron took his search for the ideal heroine one step
further by choosing a ship as the heroine and so was able to use a human
"hero" and "heroine" with all the sexiness and charisma of a pair of dead
fish. But he punched the right buttons in his intended audience especially
in teenage girls (who were reputedly the largest and most loyal market
segment).



Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:27 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Danielle Moulton <dmoult10@CHEC.SCU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: torture & other undesirables
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Does anyone besides me have some small qualms about whether the ability
> to humorously apply torture is a step in the right direction?  ... Do we
> need this?

> Why should we be brought into the same sickness (solving problems with  >
> violence and feeling good about it) that has been a male plague on the
> world for a couple of thousand years?

 i wasn't saying i *approved* of "torture" in movies at all. I actually
 quite dislike it. However I thought it was a step forward because it was a
 mainstream movie for once applying the same standards (however dismal) to
 women as to men, which to me is what equality is about.

 IMHO, if from there there's a societal problem with the violence then
 address it as such but deal with us together - and don't say that we're
 only equal in  "desirable" characteristics. :)

 even if men may generally be a lot better at certain undesirable
 characteristics than we are *grin*,

 Danielle

 (an extremely non-violent person who still enjoys some violence in movies
 and science fiction/fantasy - and i have no idea what is intrinsically
different about males and females and what is just cultural so i don't feel
able to judge)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:28:29 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Julieanne * <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      FWD: Re: [*FSFFU*] Aliens - the movies
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

For information of list-members:

>It seems to me that there are two central sociological/anthropological
>themes running through the four 'Alien' films.
>The mother theme is predominant and progresses from Ripley as protector
>against and survivor of the alien in the first film to Ripley as mother of
>an alien in the fourth installment.
>
>In Alien Ripley is mother and protector of the cat (Jones)
>In Aliens Ripley is mother and protector of Newt
>In Aliens 3 Ripley is mother of an unborn alien in her own 'womb'
>In Alien Resurrection Ripley is mother of a mutant alien derived from her
>genes.
>
>In the first two films she saves the children although Newt dies at the
>beginning of the third film: in the second two she kills them in order to
>save her own species.
>
>The second theme is the relationship between Ripley (as human) and the
>aliens. In the initial film she is portrayed as a survivor who must kill
>the alien but by the last work Ripley is part alien herself.
>
>In Alien she is pitted against the alien as the other that must be
>destroyed in order for her to survive
>In Aliens she is seen as someone who understands them and who can assist in
>their destruction. An empathy is developing.
>In Alien 3 she is both expert alien fighter, and in carrying the unborn
>alien within, now part of both species.
>In Alien 4 she is magically resurrected through genetic cloning and has
>within her alien DNA. She is now both human and alien.
>
>Intertwined with these two major themes is the issue of the Androids. It is
>interesting that she moves from almost being killed by one in the opening
>text of the series and being the only survivor with one in the last of the
>pieces. The Androids themselves move from machine like function based
>entities in the first film to whole 'self-aware' creatures in the last. In
>fact the nature of the Androids closely parallels the development of both
>the mother and the alien representations.
>
>In Alien the traitorous Android works for the company and all crew are
>"expendable" for the sake of bringing an alien specimen back to the
>"company" . This Android admires the alien.
>In Aliens we suspect the Android has again betrayed Ripley (ie humans) but
>Bishop returns in a nail biting finish to save not only Ripley and her
>"faulty male hero" but also saves the child Newt from death in the final
>scene. This Android admires humans, as when Bishop says to Ripley "Not bad
>for a human".
>In Alien 3 what's left of Bishop is resurrected Ripley and provides vital
>information concerning her state of "impregnation". The Android also
>expresses a wry sense of self worth when he asks to be destroyed because
>he'll never be top of the line again. In the final sequence the real
>Bishop, who works for the company, arrives to plead falsely with Ripley.
>Here we see the Android as a better being that the human it was modelled on.
>In Alien Resurrection the revelation of the Android is left till almost two
>thirds of the way into the plot development when the Androd played by
>Winona Ryder appears to be dead but returns with her wiring hanging out.
>Ripley adopts a cautious friendship with her and together they destroy the
>aliens and the 'child' mutant alien of Ripley's. The fact that the last
>android in the series is female is significant in that Ripley is able to
>implicitly trust her -possibly?
>
>
>Cheers :)
>Kim Patterson
>kpat@ruralnet.net.au
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:06:19 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         lisette boily <boilyl@SHAW.WAVE.CA>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anna F. Dal Dan wrote:

>There is also IMHO a Bad Mother in Alien One: the Nostromo's computer,
>Mother, who betrays her "children" and is an emanation of the
>Corporation, itself a mother-figure. There is a lot of tragic or bad
>motherhood in the first Alien

>I'd say that Ripley in the first film is a refusal to be brought down to
>the ancient laws of motherhood, and an advancement toward a better
>emotional and social bond - she is, after all, a woman who cares for her
>crewmen as a worker and officer, not as a mother.


This is all very interesting, considering the fact that the American cut of
the second movie, Aliens, cut out completely a significant section where
Ripley is searching for her long lost daughter, left by her before her 11th
birthday in the first Alien film (but not attended to in the first film;
although the novel by Alan Dean Foster does, if memory serves me, does
characterize Ripley as a single, working mother).  Everything is tied up in
this sequence:  Ripley's daughter died in her 60s, never having had
children.  It also underscores the ultimate effect of Ripley's time
displacement.  This all leaves Ripley emotionally distraught, leading right
up to her interrogation by the company.  It also, of course, puts a  whole
new light on Ripley's "adoption" of Newt later in Aliens, and her
destruction of the Alien nursery.  Yes she and the Alien queen are both
mothers, but the aliens are responsible for taking her away from her
daughter permanently.  I think that all the academic discussion of Ripley as
a problematic macho female hero becomes less clear cut with this new
character information--that interestingly was kept from American audiences.

It's still not available on video, I believe, although the "fuller" version
sometimes does come over the tube in North America.  But whoever decided to
cut the "mother/daughter" scene was probably (and unfortunately) right:
remember the wide negative North American response to Alien 3's inclusion of
Ripley's sexuality/desire for sexual intimacy?

I'd be very interested in hearing from others who have seen both versions of
Aliens....

Lisette Boily, Toronto, Canada
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:12:04 PDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Daniel Krashin <dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Content-Type: text/plain

>Date:    Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:09:44 EDT
>From:    "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
>Subject: Re: BDG Shadow Man
>
>In a message dated 10/8/98 12:03:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
>
><<  It's not quite
> didacticism, but close. >>
>
>
>Why so?
>
>Madrone
>
Well, it seems to me that Melissa Scott (and lots of other writers,
too) sometimes betrays her own vision by trying to bend it to fit
her preconception of what her fiction "should be about."  She strives
for relevance in a way that sometimes diminishes the appeal of her
fiction for me.  It's far from being agitprop, but it still bugs me.
I like politics in my fiction, actually, but not this way.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:49:01 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Julieanne * (by way of Joe Sutliff Sanders
              <jcsand1@pop.uky.edu>)" <jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject:      FWD: Re: [*FSFFU*] Aliens - the movies
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

--I got this from the IAFA listserv.  It's especially applicable to those
of us teaching English in its various mutant forms.

For information of list-members:

>It seems to me that there are two central sociological/anthropological
>themes running through the four 'Alien' films.
>The mother theme is predominant and progresses from Ripley as protector
>against and survivor of the alien in the first film to Ripley as mother of
>an alien in the fourth installment.
>
>In Alien Ripley is mother and protector of the cat (Jones)
>In Aliens Ripley is mother and protector of Newt
>In Aliens 3 Ripley is mother of an unborn alien in her own 'womb'
>In Alien Resurrection Ripley is mother of a mutant alien derived from her
>genes.
>
>In the first two films she saves the children although Newt dies at the
>beginning of the third film: in the second two she kills them in order to
>save her own species.
>
>The second theme is the relationship between Ripley (as human) and the
>aliens. In the initial film she is portrayed as a survivor who must kill
>the alien but by the last work Ripley is part alien herself.
>
>In Alien she is pitted against the alien as the other that must be
>destroyed in order for her to survive
>In Aliens she is seen as someone who understands them and who can assist in
>their destruction. An empathy is developing.
>In Alien 3 she is both expert alien fighter, and in carrying the unborn
>alien within, now part of both species.
>In Alien 4 she is magically resurrected through genetic cloning and has
>within her alien DNA. She is now both human and alien.
>
>Intertwined with these two major themes is the issue of the Androids. It is
>interesting that she moves from almost being killed by one in the opening
>text of the series and being the only survivor with one in the last of the
>pieces. The Androids themselves move from machine like function based
>entities in the first film to whole 'self-aware' creatures in the last. In
>fact the nature of the Androids closely parallels the development of both
>the mother and the alien representations.
>
>In Alien the traitorous Android works for the company and all crew are
>"expendable" for the sake of bringing an alien specimen back to the
>"company" . This Android admires the alien.
>In Aliens we suspect the Android has again betrayed Ripley (ie humans) but
>Bishop returns in a nail biting finish to save not only Ripley and her
>"faulty male hero" but also saves the child Newt from death in the final
>scene. This Android admires humans, as when Bishop says to Ripley "Not bad
>for a human".
>In Alien 3 what's left of Bishop is resurrected Ripley and provides vital
>information concerning her state of "impregnation". The Android also
>expresses a wry sense of self worth when he asks to be destroyed because
>he'll never be top of the line again. In the final sequence the real
>Bishop, who works for the company, arrives to plead falsely with Ripley.
>Here we see the Android as a better being that the human it was modelled on.
>In Alien Resurrection the revelation of the Android is left till almost two
>thirds of the way into the plot development when the Androd played by
>Winona Ryder appears to be dead but returns with her wiring hanging out.
>Ripley adopts a cautious friendship with her and together they destroy the
>aliens and the 'child' mutant alien of Ripley's. The fact that the last
>android in the series is female is significant in that Ripley is able to
>implicitly trust her -possibly?
>
>
>Cheers :)
>Kim Patterson
>kpat@ruralnet.net.au
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:07:29 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,
              and the wrong types of a feminist hero
In-Reply-To:  <573f5940.36214161@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Phoebe Wray wrote:

> I still like Ripley's "bitch" line.  I like to think I would have protected
> the kid.
>

Me too.  I just wish it was not the only "permissible" reason for a woman
to get into a fight.  it never stops surprising me that the myth of
the "weaker sex" always comes with the exception for a "mother defending
her young".  It always seemed to me extremely illogical -- if a person has
the strength to kick butt in one set of curcumstances, she can do it in any
other.  She still has the same body and the same mind.

Besides, for most women, there are much more common and frequent reasons
to get into a fight than protecting children.   Not all women have
children.  However, most of women have to protect themselves from violence
and/or abuse at one point or another.  And that is exactly the right that
is denied them by the patriarchial society.  No one has a problem with
women defending children -- that's one less thing for men to worry about,
and it enforces the woman's main role as "child rearer" at the same time.
While women protecting themselves are seen as "unfeminine" at least (which
for women is supposed to be worse than become "inhuman").  This is what
makes me sick.

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, 13 Oct 1998 12:29:47 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: torture & other undesirables
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 2:21:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dmoult10@CHEC.SCU.EDU.AU writes:

<< and i have no idea what is intrinsically
 different about males and females and what is just cultural so i don't feel
 able to judge) >>

Males in our culture are astonishingly violent compared to females here and
males in other industrial countries and other eras.  See:  "Male Violence"
edited by John Archer as just one resource of many.  A quote from the book is:
"Most human violence is carried out by men.  Male violence could even be
described as the major source of human suffering."

There are physiological and learning problems associated with maleness:
"...male infants suffer a 25% higher mortality rate than femal infants; boys
are twice as likely as girls to suffer from autism, six times as likely to be
diagnosed with hyperkinesis, and more likely to suffer birth defects.  The
majority of schizoophrenics are boys.  The majority of retarded children are
boys; emotionally disturbed boys outnumber girls 4 to 1, learning disabled
boys outnumber girls 2-1...in recent years, more girls than boys entered
college and graduate schools."  "The Wonder of Boys, Michael Gurian.

I don't care for Gurian's book because he refuses to include the large amount
of research on environment and the brain (your environment affects the final
anatomy of your brain) but his statistics are certainly interesting.


I think we need to do some work here, but making movies that try to erase
these problems by 'showing' that females are as violent as males kind of
misses the issue.

Madrone, on again...
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:07:26 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Alien movies--feminist or not?
In-Reply-To:  <199810121349.IAA07361@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Robin Reid wrote:

>
> Since Ripley is a hybrid by the fourth movie, not "human" anymore, it also
> becomes an interesting question of how human is she....I also noticed that
> throughout the series "men" tended to be the villains as well as the
> occasinal hero....not very flattering portrayals of men.  I'm not sure
> that's officially feminist either, but it's interesting to examine.

I think the reason villains are usually male are the same as why heroes
often are -- it's a "default" gender. So unless  the author is trying to
make a point that women can be good and bad like all people (or unless
it's a traditional "good man against bad woman to save nice girl"), there
is one female hero surrounded by male heroes, male villains, and male
bystanders.

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, 13 Oct 1998 10:49:11 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jessie Stickgold-Sarah <jss@PA.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Alien movies--feminist or not?
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Tue, 13 Oct 98 12:07:26 CDT."
              <Pine.A41.4.03.9810131133360.52318-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>I think the reason villains are usually male are the same as why heroes
>often are -- it's a "default" gender. So unless  the author is trying to
>make a point that women can be good and bad like all people (or unless
>it's a traditional "good man against bad woman to save nice girl"), there
>is one female hero surrounded by male heroes, male villains, and male
>bystanders.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the reason why I like to see women in
all positions, whether or not I approve of or like the characters -- perhaps
it's what dmoult10@CHEC.SCU.EDU.AU (Danielle Moulton) was saying about the
woman-torturer scene. Women should be portrayed in all the complexity of their
real lives. Women should get to be *people*.

Right now, everywhere you turn, you have people and women. This was most
eloquently expressed by the title of a book I saw in a doctor's office:
_Anatomy and Gynecology_. Gynecology is the medical study of women's bodies;
anatomy is the medical study of the human body. (Look it up in a dictionary if
you think I'm reading too much into this.) There is no branch of medicine
dealing with men's bodies; that's just medicine. If we say that Western
medicine is flawed, that doesn't mean that it's advantageous to women to be
unrepresented in the field of medicine. Similarly, even if I believe that
violence is very rarely right, that doesn't mean it's advantageous for the
whole world to believe that I'll never defend myself, that I can't fight, that
I will never hurt anyone else. I want people to say, "She wouldn't hurt
someone if she didn't have to because of her pacifist and largely anti-violent
upbringing and beliefs," not "She wouldn't hurt anyone because she's a woman."
After all, it was my pacifist and non-violent mother who took me to my first
anti-war protest when I was six months old, and who sent me to a damn fine
self-defense class when I was sixteen (the minimum age).

jessie
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:00:17 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Alien movies--feminist or not?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 10:15:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<< I think the reason villains are usually male are the same as why heroes
 often are -- it's a "default" gender. So unless  the author is trying to
 make a point that women can be good and bad like all people (or unless
 it's a traditional "good man against bad woman to save nice girl"), there
 is one female hero surrounded by male heroes, male villains, and male
 bystanders. >>


Hi, Marina, sorry I haven't responded earlier.  Very worried about you.
Re your comment...sorry, you know, but I have to point out that there is a BIG
difference in violent behaviors between men and women.

Madrone...have you had any luck with the issue of staying here?????
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:03:11 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Alien movies--feminist or not?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM
writes:

<< Women should be portrayed in all the complexity of their
 real lives. Women should get to be *people*. >>


Yes, as long as it is true.  One of my writing teachers taught us that a story
is only good if it reflects real life.  Portraying women behaving the way men
do is a disservice to both, and is just putting a bra on some guy.  Womens
lives are complicated and rich, and THAT is what I would like to see
portrayed.  Let's not teach little girls the same screwball things we teach
little boys.

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:50:21 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
In-Reply-To:  <s621cc75.055@famprac.umn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote:

> But it's not unfeminist to dislike hitting people.  It's not unfeminist to
dislike movies that are stupidly violent.  It's not unfeminist to dislike war.
 And I happen to like fantasy novels, in moderation.  Any behavior I share
with men, I will share because I choose that behavior, not because I want to
be like men .

I agree with you completely. The problem is that for many feminists -- ok,
lets put it this way -- all feminists I personally know here around me,
both violence and desire to succeed is such a no-no that they are consider
you an enemy of people who even thinking that way.  It's like -- you
become worse than the patriarchy itself.

> How many people on this list have been seriously discommoded by some old
school PC feminist?  I'm not going to make fun of an ideology I've never
encountered in person, just to prove that I'm not part of it.

Well, you are luckier than me. _ All_ women I have encountered in real
life (as opposed to the Internet) were thinking like those "old school PC
feminists" even those of my age.  And to be honest, I 'm sick and tired of
having to defend myself from both macho jerks and those feminists who see
women's strengh only in being a victim.

Talking about this list per se, by the way, I remember a heated discussion
about a year ago about Barbi.  Some people, including me, confessed their
dislikeness of dolls in general. One person said that her main usage
for her  Barbi was to throw her down the stairs and see her bounce.  I
remember what kind of outrage that eventually caused from the number of
this lists participants who went on and on about the "tender, nurturing"
nature of the "true" women.  How it contradicted the very idea of
womanhood and its superiority to males.  How it was agoinst everything
feminism was trying to accomplish, and yada-yada-yada. It
almost resulted in a flame war, I believe.   So this attitude is
very much alive and kicking.

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, 13 Oct 1998 14:01:29 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Comments: To: Lilith <ligeia@CONCENTRIC.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <36221DE8.2E62BDD8@concentric.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Lilith wrote:
<snip>

> But I've heard a lot
> of that "women are nurturing, peaceful, blah, blah" from women like
> this.  They also say things like "women can't be President, they are too
> emotional" etc.

They also say "a feminist woman would not _want_ to be a President.  The
politics are too dirty and competitive and against the nice, sharing
nature of women.  Besides, that would be a collaboration with
the enemy -- working for the hated patriarchial system".


I think maybe somehow the media has confused feminists
> with new-ageist and/or traditional women and so now we have this
> steroeotype of the "peaceful woman."

I think media does it on purpose.  Women who want to participate in this
world instead of organizing communes are a lot more threatening to the
male dominance in power structures.

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, 13 Oct 1998 14:18:27 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
In-Reply-To:  <19981012163941.24700.qmail@www0n.netaddress.usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote:

> But no one could possibly suggest that Cameron's Ripley was sexless - strong,
> yes, but a strong, sexy female.

I agree with that, partially.  However, it is interesting that sexy as she
could be, she did not have sex, or any trace of flirting, for that matter,
except maybe with the android in that part.  Strong females who have sex
always die, which is what happened in Aliens 3.

 Cameron continued this
theme when he made
> _Terminator II_'s Sarah Connor, a powerful, almost masculine, figure who's
> also a loving mother.

It is also worth mentioning that in the first Terminator she was more of a
traditional woman -- soft and helpless, at least at first, and in need of
being rescued by her son's future father.  While in the second part, she
is hard as nails, but -- single.  When women evolve to being strong, they
apparently lose the right to mate, attractive and sexy as they might be.

I think I mentioned it here before, but I read about and ancient custom
that had existed in Albania.  There, a woman was allowed to drink, smoke,
ride horses and generally participate in "male" activities with one single
condition -- they had to remain virgins for life.  So all those taboos for
women about being strong in the end are not about their ability to nurture
or bear children.  It's all about sex.  She can do anything men do, if
she gives up that. Because one thing macho men cannot bear is the idea
that they (or any man) can be sexually involved with a woman who can kick
their butt.  If she does not have sex, she is not really a woman, and then
it's OK.

> Alien4's Ripley was - I think - not so much "Schwartzenegger" as "Stallone in
> drag" but in any case the essential Ripley of the first 2 was gone.

Interesting.  How would you define the difference between Schwartzenegger
and Stallone in drag?  I'm curious, because I thought about it, too. Is it
that the latter is more kind of "passionate"?

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, 13 Oct 1998 14:25:22 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism and violence
In-Reply-To:  <9810121715.AA03114@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote:

On Aliens:

> But it's a *movie*. It's absolutely escapist. Many of the values exhibited in
> it are abhorrent and, I would go so far as to say, yucky to me. It's possible
> to rejoice in the freedom given to this female character, to be thrilled at
> the fact that she's breaking away from many of the imposed cultural norms, and
> yet not actually want those things to happen.

You are right.  I wonder if that was the reason Aliens was so incredibly
popular and still is, long after other sf adventures of the 80's are gone
and forgotten.

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, 13 Oct 1998 17:02:19 -0400
Reply-To:     asaro@sff.net
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Catherine Asaro <asaro@SFF.NET>
Subject:      Aurora in Four Voices
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For those who expressed interest in my novella "Aurora in Four Voices,"
the web pages for it are up now, both at the ANALOG web site and at
mine.

"Aurora in Four Voices" is the cover story for the Dec ANALOG (which
apparently just came out, even though it is Oct :-).  It is set in my
Skolian Empire universe.  An excerpt of the novella and a copy of the
=Analog= cover can be found as the first link at:

http://www.sff.net/people/asaro

The editor for =Analog= told me that he is hoping stories like "Aurora"
will break some of the stereotypes associated with the magazine.  My
impression is that they want to be more inclusive of a wider audience.
I suspect that the direction the magazine takes depends at least to some
extent on how readers respond.  Some criticism has appeared in the
letters column in recent years decrying the stories with strong female
characters, more feminist-oriented themes, or even just the use of "he
and she."  So if you like such stories in =Analog,= I urge you to let
them know.

The ANALOG web address is:

http://www.sfsite.com/analog/

This also bears on the discussion of strong female characters.  Soz, a
main character in "Aurora," the narrator of my book =Primary Inversion,=
and the main character in =The Radiant Seas,= has been described as a
nontraditional, strong female character.  It struck me as odd at first
because I thought she was a =normal= character who was also a
high-ranking military officer well respected by the people she led.  I
was thinking in terms of the characterization for a good leader who is
both strong and compassionate, as well as being a good officer.  That
this was considered unusual enough in a female character to warrant
comment shouldn't have caught me by surprise, but it did.

I agree it is tiresome how often women are shown as successful only in
action roles that involve battling other women or otherwise carrying out
stereotyped roles.  Although I found many aspects of Ripley's character
effective, I also abhorred that "bitch" line in the =Alien= movie.  Pah.

However, we have to be careful not to go too far in the other
direction.  Science fiction has a stunning lack of healthy portrayals of
children and family.  In fact, there was almost an unwritten "law" for
years that if a female character was strong she =couldn't= have things
that strong male characters often took for granted, such as a loving
spouse/SO.  There is nothing unusual about an action hero with an
adoring, gorgeous wife waiting for him (nor, sadly, is it unusual for
her to get knocked off to motivate mayhem on part of said hero).  But a
female action hero having an adoring, gorgeous husband waiting for her
(and staying alive) is rare to nonexistence.

Men are often shown defending the women and children; no reason women
can't defend the men and children.  It seems to me the point is to widen
roles of both male and female characters.  What I object to is the focus
that confines women to sex-stereotyped roles.

I wouldn't want to see all sf/f in that vein, of course.  But at the
moment it is rare. All too often we either get tradition or caricature.
Rather than fewer loving mothers, I would prefer sf/f encompass more
loving fathers, and more about how having a family affects =both= women
and men, all those issues that for so long were dismissed as only
suitable for "women's fiction," as if that made them somehow inferior to
Important Issues.

Best regards
Catherine Asaro
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:07:55 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anthea Hartley Stanton <ajhs@USA.NET>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 13 Oct 98, at 14:18, Marina wrote:

> I agree with that, partially.  However, it is interesting that
> sexy as she could be, she did not have sex, or any trace of
> flirting, for that matter, except maybe with the android in that
> part.  Strong females who have sex always die, which is what
> happened in Aliens 3.

I can't agree there. There was definitely sexual tension between Cpl Hicks
(p/b Michael Biehn) and Ripley (think, for example, of the scene where he
shows her how to use the M41A for example). The 'love interest' (such as it
was) was between these two. As for the 'death of the strong woman who has sex'
in alien3 I think you're  confusing this with David Fincher's tendency to
bitter endings (see _Seven_ for example).

> It is also worth mentioning that in the first Terminator she was more of a
> traditional woman -- soft and helpless, at least at first, and in need of
> being rescued by her son's future father.  While in the second part, she
> is hard as nails, but -- single.  When women evolve to being strong, they
> apparently lose the right to mate, attractive and sexy as they might be.

In view of the fact that Sarah Connor was in a nuthouse for the first part of
the film and spent most of the second part of the film blowing up a lab and
being chased down by a shape-changer, it's not terribly surprising that she
should be single. Based on the films I've seen over the last couple of years,
I'd be surprised if you were right about 'strong women [losing] the right to
mate' being a feature of more than a small percentage of film scripts
containing  women fighters.

> Interesting.  How would you define the difference between Schwartzenegger
> and Stallone in drag?  I'm curious, because I thought about it, too. Is it
> that the latter is more kind of "passionate"?

I don't actually see either of these two men as passionate. It's just that in
most films - however gruesome - Schwartzenegger always has a snappy line of
repartee which he delivers with a certain panache ('"I'll be baaaack!").
Stallone (I'm thinking of the 'Rambo' character in particular) comes over as a
dour humourless sort of guy - exactly like the Sarah Connor character in
Terminator II. On a more trivial level, I always think of Stallone as 'the man
with the twisted lip' - which looking at Linda Hamilton applies, _mutatis
mutandis_, to her as well.


AJ
Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net)
_________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:11:46 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG Shadow Man
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 8:47:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM writes:

<< Well, it seems to me that Melissa Scott (and lots of other writers,
 too) sometimes betrays her own vision by trying to bend it to fit
 her preconception of what her fiction "should be about."  She strives
 for relevance in a way that sometimes diminishes the appeal of her
 fiction for me.  It's far from being agitprop, but it still bugs me.
 I like politics in my fiction, actually, but not this way.
  >>


I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by the above.  agitprop?  How Do
you like politics in your fiction?  Was it politics?  Hm.  maybe you and I
just are not on the same wavelength.

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:44:37 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anne Vespry <avespry@OLLIS.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject:      Lara Croft & other women in video games
In-Reply-To:  <A96613FBFCC8D111AC3F00A0C96B5401E50606@FMSMSX42>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Candioglos, Sandy wrote:

> > From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU]
>         <snip>
> > As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple of women
> > in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.
>         <snip>

There's also the female archer character in Diablo.... I'm most impressed
by the games (Doom, I think, started this trend) that allow players to
edit the game setting. That meant that as well as being able to substitute
pictures of politicians for the monsters one could edit in an image of a
female face for the main character. It may be a bit more work, but why
wait for games manufacturers to write women in when we can do it
ourselves?

Anne

Anne Vespry               *******      http://www.vex.net/~maverick
After Stonewall Bookshop   *****               never forget
avespry(at)                 ***               only dead fish
ollisdotuottawadotca         *             swim WITH the stream
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:49:04 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
In-Reply-To:  <98df0a07.36223ced@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

> Does anyone besides me have some small qualms about whether the ability to
> humorously apply torture is a step in the right direction?  I just finished
> "The rape of Nanking"  by Iris Chang.  There is one incredible photo where a
> young man is kneeling, his shirt torn off his shoulders, waiting to be
> beheaded.  The soldiers in the background are laughing.
>
> Do we need this?

I think that these are different issues.  I had things like that scene you
described (and worse) going on all around me for several years back home,
and I do not enjoy them much in real life, either.  To be honest,
i hope to never encounter them again unless in a book. However, the
ability to apply the sense of humor to the horrible things going on in
this world is not such a bad way to protect yourself from going crazy.
Whether you detest violence or not, when you see people taken away to get
killed and corpses lying on street corners for days, and knowing that you
can be one of either at any point, you've got to keep living somehow.  And
if you want to survive, you don't want to feel scared.  And laughing
helps.

I'm not sure i can explain this well, but an action movie is not a real
life.  No one even in Hollywood would try to present events like the ones
in the Rape of Nankin just for entertainment purposes.  Ripley blasting
monsters is something different from a gang of soldiers executing a
civilian.  I would not want to see a woman performing genocide any more
that I'd like to see a man doing that.  And i don't think many other
people would like that, either.  Otherwise, instead of spending millions
on special effects, Hollywood directors could just go to quite a few
places in the world and simply tape the real events.  Like, soldiers
disposing of their wounded prisoners after a fight by tiyng them up with
barb wire and throwing them into the irrigation canal nearby, to save
the bullets.  Or pouring boiling water into the mouths or tied up
prisoners.  or cutting off all body parts that could be cut off, except
the head itself, and hanging them on a string like a necklace on the neck
of the  still-alive victim.  I'm not even going into what is done to
women, who present many more additional "torture-for-fun" possibilites.
What is Halloween-6 comparing to that?

However, you don't see things like this even mentioned in movies or TV,
let alone shown.  Because unless you have seen soldiers of the other side
doing the same to your family and friends, you would not  find this in any
way entertaining (and most normal people would not find it entertaining
regardless of what they had been through.)

When a female hero blasts off bad guys in a science fiction movie (which
is pretty much the only kind of movies where it happens) it is about
something else.  This cartoon violence of Hollywood movies is more
about the struggle of an individual (or a group)with some bad-ass
conditions for some important cause, so the violence is
more of a graphical metaphor of this struggle.  the metaphor that would
make it more interesting to people who would hardly ever do something like
that in real life.

What I am trying to say, the presence of "bad" female characters along
with good ones in mass culture does not mean (to me) that they should be
seen as some kind of role models.  It's simply honest, because woman are
humans, and humans can be evil.  There are women who would laugh while
executing someone, unfortunately, so the their presence in movies only
recongnizes the complexity of human nature, with women as a valid part of
humanity. I don't justify what they are doing (Hell, I wish no one
would ever tortured another person, regardless of one's gender!).  But the
presence of different female characters -- good or bad -- creates a more
fair representation of the world.  Which means that as long as the
evilness of a female character is not presented as the direct
consequence of her being female, it is a good thing.  It is more
interesting to see a story with heroes, villains, and bystanders or both
genders, instead of one or two female little-more-than-rescue-objects in a
seemingly all-male world (like that idiotic Snow Crash).

We don't have to make a conscious effort  to be as bad as men can be in
order to be equal. But sometimes we are, and accepting that fact is simply
a step  in recognizing us as a part of human race.

IMHO,
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, 13 Oct 1998 15:09:28 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Joyce Jones <hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Subject:      words that put us in our place

Joe wrote:

"However, the movie seems to imply that it is proper
and perhaps laudable for one female to demean another in terms that express
contempt for her that can only be used to denigrate women.  If the
screenwriter's idea was that Ripley invoke humanity's superiority over the
unknown by having Ripley curse, then how about, "Get away from her,
fucker!"  Does that seem less powerful?  Possibly.  Is it less
gender-specific?  Obviously.
        It seems to me that what happens here is that the movie sets up and
praises the idea of one female using a patriarchal curse to rob another
female of power"

I strongly agree.  I hate to hear a woman call another "bitch", as much as I
hate to hear a black person call another "nigger" or a homosexual call
another "dyke" or "fag".  These derogatory terms imply not only that the
other person is bad or wrong or hateful but that they are even more evil
because they're female, black or homosexual; as if a male white heterosexual
villain is a better person in some basic way.

I'm a little torn on the idea of people referring to like people jokingly
with these same terms.  Richard Pryor said after visiting in Africa he could
no longer use the term nigger even in jest because it implied such
disrespect for his people (I found he never had a problem using the term
bitch though.)  I once cared for a woman who had the words 100% Crazy Bitch
tattooed on her forearm.  There was no way I could think she fully respected
herself to do such a thing .

I can call myself fat without implying a lack of self respect, it's merely a
descriptive term.  However if someone else calls me fat I can tell if the
term is meant to describe or defame.  The same could be said I guess about
the term "dyke", one could see it as a term of honor, description or
disparagement.  "Fag" however implying an effeminate man would be less
likely to be considered a term of honor, I would think, knowing how manhood
is valued above all.

Joyce
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:06:27 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
In-Reply-To:  <19981013210746.15630.qmail@www0g.netaddress.usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote:

> In view of the fact that Sarah Connor was in a nuthouse for the first part of
> the film and spent most of the second part of the film blowing up a lab and
> being chased down by a shape-changer, it's not terribly surprising that she
> should be single. Based on the films I've seen over the last couple of years,
> I'd be surprised if you were right about 'strong women [losing] the right to
> mate' being a feature of more than a small percentage of film scripts
> containing  women fighters.

Ok, what I meant was that a male character in the same situation would
most likely get lucky at one point or another, no matter how dense and
full of action the plot would be. Getting a kiss or a boob shot from a
nurse in the nuthouse, having sex in a burning helicopter while chased by
the enemies -- something.  Women heroes never have sex (while they are
heroes) and live.  At least I cannot think of a movie that would have
that.  I agree with Catherine Asaro on that one -- it would be awfully
nice to have a loving gorgeous spouse waiting for the female protagonist
at the end of the story.  The only film i can think of where it happened
was GI Jane.

About Stallone adn Schwartzenegger -- I think the main difference is that
Arnold's heroes are more ironic and humorous about things they do, while
Stallone's tough guys are of more tragic-serious type.  Which is kind of
funny, because for what I have heard, in real life, Schwartzenegger takes
himself a lot more seriously than Stallone.  He's a lot more conservative,
too.  I've  heard that he did not allow his wife to wear pants in his
presence or something like that.

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, 13 Oct 1998 21:20:05 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jean Bocchino - North Port Library <bocchij@SNOOPY.TBLC.LIB.FL.US>
Subject:      Re: Aliens - the movies
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.A41.4.03.9810131654300.37592-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hello all,

I'm new to the list but have been fascinated by the contrasts between
Aliens and TII for some years and just had to jump in.

 A couple of my favorite scenes to ponder:

The opening shots of the female leads:
Ripley is shown in her sleep chamber--under glass, like sleeping beauty;
Hamilton's character is doing chin-ups.  I like the shift from passive to
active (not necessarily aggressive).

Also--what about the ending of TII...the 'father' figure (AS's cyborg)has
begun a rudimentary understanding of human emotions and compassion, yet
sacrifices himself...

JB
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:33:12 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jim Hollomon <WaterLuv@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: feminism and violence
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/12/98 1:20:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM
writes:

> It's very hard for me to watch
>  typical blood-and-gore movies with male heros because there's *nothing* to
>  distract me from the fact that it's just people killing each other all over
>  the place. That's not because I'm female. That's not because I think I'd
> lose
>  in any fight -- I don't. It's because I believe that violence is often
wrong.
>  And if believing that is a "womanish" way to think, then good on us. (And
my
>  father, and my brother, and my uncles, and my husband...it just doesn't
wash
>  for me.)

If a male can jump into this for a moment, I'm just as sick of blood-and-gore
movies. I'm equally appalled at the idea that might makes right, and that the
world would be a better place if we substituted mob violence and bands of
roving thugs for the rule of law. We have only to look at life in places like
Bosnia during the "ethnic cleansing" or the Tutsi vs. Hutu tribal violence in
and around Somalia to see what horrors such thinking brings to life. Give this
pansy the rule of law any day. Like you, I'm perfectly willing to take up arms
when the alternative is surrendering to some deranged tyrant like an Adolph
Hitler. However, that falls way short of glorifying the violence of W.W.II. At
best, it should be seen as a necessary evil.

Jim
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:20:52 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 2:56:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<< We don't have to make a conscious effort  to be as bad as men can be in
 order to be equal. But sometimes we are, and accepting that fact is simply
 a step  in recognizing us as a part of human race. >>

Marina, I always enjoy your posts and learn from them.  And I certainly think
that we need to see all human characters with their warts intact.  I just
don't like to see men's warts stuck onto women for the sake of a story.  And I
do believe that the stories have a real affect on us, whether they are stories
of a male god demanding the sacrifice of the life of his son and the removal
of women from religious power, or science fiction where women do things that
they rarely, if ever, do in real life.  I think the difference here is not
only that I am willing to acknowledge that there IS a major disjunction of
violence by gender, but also that I see a great deal of hope in that.  Because
I think one thing we all agree on is that we want to stop this nonesense, and
stop it now.

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:00:10 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         SMCharnas <suzych@HIGHFIBER.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 11 Oct 1998 to 12 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Madrone wrote:
>
><< I thought it was an interesting moment of courage and self-assertion in a
> medium that is sometimes more aware and more daring than its big brother,
>film. >>
>
>I feel so old.  Why should we be brought into the same sickness (solving
>problems with violence and feeling good about it) that has been a male plague
>on the world for a couple of thousand years?  One can be strong, wise,
>honerable, and affective without violence.  I refuse to buy into this.

For me, the point is that no choices should be foreclosed to anyone *because*
she is female -- including the choices I don't like to see anyone make.  But
the core of my own sense of what feminism is turns on the idea of widening
the field of choices available to women, which has been narrowed artificially
by male-dominated laws, values, economics, politics, etc.  After all, the idea
is also that women have the right to behave like idiots (as so many men
choose to do) without being punished twice as hard for it.  You still
should have the right to learn from your mistakes (as well as your successes),
even if what you learn is that using (rather than being the victim of)
violence only seems to solve problems, but in fact makes things worse.

If, indeed, it always does.  Note the most recent "solution" reached in
Bosnia.  Milosovic is a thug, and all the talking and coaxing in the world
is absolutely without effect with this guy and his cohort of murderers.  I
bet all those Muslim women who were raped as a matter of war-making policy
by Serb "soldiers" would have used guns to defend themselves and their
daughters if they'd had the option -- and I am not about to make the judg-
ment that they would have been wrong.  People of all sexes ought to have
access to the whole range of human responses with which to run their own
lives as best they can, however well or badly that turns out to be . . .

Says me, anyway.

Suzy
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:37:32 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 7:10:06 PM, Marina wrote:

<<I think media does it on purpose.  Women who want to participate in this
world instead of organizing communes are a lot more threatening to the
male dominance in power structures.
>>

Earlier, someone had written that the liked Xena (sorry, can't remember who
said it)... well, I do too.  And one of the reasons can be seen if you watch
the credits roll at the end of the show... many many women involved in it in
many different capacities.

best
phoebe
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:11:38 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
In-Reply-To:  <fe79d788.36223d91@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

> I feel so old.  Why should we be brought into the same sickness (solving
> problems with violence and feeling good about it) that has been a male plague
> on the world for a couple of thousand years?  One can be strong, wise,
> honerable, and affective without violence.  I refuse to buy into this.

Well, I agree that violence is not the only (and should not be the first
on the list) to express on'es strength.  And it is not something that
makes one wise or honorable.  It's just a way to defend yourself when
everything else fails, or to prevent worse things from happening.

I disagree that violence has been a male plague.  It is not any more
"male" than inrigues in politics or gambling in business.  it's just the
way things work, something that's necessary sometimes to assert one's
position.  And the ability to hurt someone who is trying to hurt you is a
lot more effecient way to, say, prevent rape, than just asking the
attacher to please don't do that.

By denying women the "right to kick butt" without becoming "like male"
essentially robs them from their chance to defend themselves.
Self-defence, including the violent means is not some copyrighted male
invention.  After all, if it's Ok for a woman to kill to "protect her
young (and I have not seen anyone arguing with that) it is definetrly OK
to do it to protegt herself.  It is not glamorizing violence. It is simply
being proud of one's ability to stand up for yourself by any means she is
forced to use, and no feeling bad about it cause it would make her "too
male-like".

If you think about it, what choice Ripley had?  Trying to negotiate with
those creepy creatures or ask the alien queen "why we all can't just get
along"? that was sf, or course, but reality can be not any prettier.

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, 13 Oct 1998 23:52:17 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: torture & other undesirables
In-Reply-To:  <a96eecba.36237ffb@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

> Males in our culture are astonishingly violent compared to females here and
> males in other industrial countries and other eras.  See:  "Male Violence"
> edited by John Archer as just one resource of many.  A quote from the book is:
> "Most human violence is carried out by men.  Male violence could even be
> described as the major source of human suffering."

Well, in my opinion males are "more violent" because they are pretty much
"more everything" in the present societies.  More educated, more socially
active, more economically self-sufficient, have higher self-esteem and so
on, and so forth.  Which does not means they are any of this by some "law
of nature".  Women are "less" of all these things -- education and
violence alike -- simply because the are not encouraged to be so, to put
it nice.  Men are punished for being weak, women are punished for being
strong.  If you are never allowed to stand up for yourself to a man and
are taught from infancy that it is more fitting to a girl to cry than to
strike back  -- that would make anyone "less violent".  Or to be more
exact to be less likely to express it, just all the other personal traits
you might have.

In my opinion, the "scientific" research that claims women to be "less
violent"  has as little to do with the psychological differences as the
fact that women are paid less money for the same kind of job.  It is the
same as claiming that "black people are less inclined to hold a public
office" on the basis of the fact that there was no one singe black
President of the United States in the history.  Does it mean the
"minorities" are less interested in becoming a president?  Or is it that
someone else made sure that they would appear "less political"?

The same for "less violent" nature of women.

By the way, those who ever had to deal with or witness child abuse knows
what the most "feminine" and "soft-natured" women can do to their
children -- the only ones with whom they can be themselves and allowed to
act in any way they please, because no one knows or cares.  I think the
amount of totally crazy sadistic mothers I had personally witnessed was
about five times the number of abusive fathers (who in most cases were
simply absent from their children's lives) I've seen. Fathers are usually
not very inventive, the worst they do is beat up their children in a fit
of rage, or rape them to show who's the boss, or both.   Mothers come up
with things that would make your heads spin.  Maybe exactly for the reason
that they are not allowed to be violent anywhere else.

Women can be not any better than men -- when they have a chance and know
that no one will find out. Even the most proper ladylike ones.  it does
not come up in statistics that often, though.

Marina,
who thinks that recongnizing that women can be complete assholes --
without denigrating all womanhood by that -- is a part of the equal
treatment of people.


http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:16:30 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 9:20:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<< I disagree that violence has been a male plague.  It is not any more
 "male" than inrigues in politics or gambling in business. >>

Marina, sometimes I think you have lost all hope of individuals working
together in ways that are productive and not harmful.  Perhaps you have seen
few examples of this?  I remain deeply concerned about your status here.  Can
we help?  May we help?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:24:44 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: torture & other undesirables
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/13/98 10:00:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<<   Men are punished for being weak, w >>


Marina!  Bingo!  Exactly!  Thank you, thank you!  This is what I am trying to
say...that if we really change our definition of maleness and live by it,
we'll have a rats chance of staying on this planet.

The work on brain development shows that environment (read: cultural norms)
shapes the anatomy of the brain.  So all we have to do is decide what is human
and head that direction.

Yes?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:20:37 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Alien movies--feminist or not?
Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <a7b9a5cb.36239531@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi, Madrone!
I think I still owe you a message.  Sorry, got really tied up with my
school work.  Today I had no homework to do, so I spent most of my work
hours on the Internet (therefore all those messages I posted).

You know, I understand where you coming from about males being more
violent, even if I don't completely agree.  A person, regardless of
gender, is more likely to be hurt by a male than by a female in their
lifetime (apart from the cases of child abuse, which I think is a bit more
complex).  However, I think that it has more to do with the fact that
males generally have more power, and therefore the possibility to hurt
someone than women do.  And I think that women in the same conditions
would act pretty much alike.  This does not mean that hurting others is
good, it just means that it seems to be an unfortuanate universal human
trait, and should be dealt with as such.  In my opinion, it's a lot more
effective to make violence less popular to people in general than by
simply assigning it to the male part of the population as their specific
fault.  That's more like blaming than finding a constructive solution.

Besides, "violence as a  part of male psyche" is a pretty damn good excuse
to those men who _choose_ being violent, and I don't think we'll get
anywhere by supporting that kind of thinking.  Violence is a part of human
character, either we all are going to get rid of it, or none of us will.
Making one half of human population less or more prone to it than the
other is pointless.  If violence is bad, it's because it's bad, not
because it's "male".

Besides, in the present world, denying women the ability to use violence
for self-defence only makes them more vulnerable.  It is great if don't
need that, but if you do, you better not be shackled by your own belief
that defending yourself by any means possible is against your nature.
You may have never use your black-belt karate skills, but knowing that you
have them will make you feel more confident, even in trying to "talk the
rapist out of it" first.
> Hi, Marina, sorry I haven't responded earlier.  Very worried about you.
> Re your comment...sorry, you know, but I have to point out that there is a BIG
> difference in violent behaviors between men and women.
>
> Madrone...have you had any luck with the issue of staying here?????

So far - not really.  I'm still in the danger of getting deported back to
Tajikistan (and getting a chance to explore the topics of the extreme
violence in the field setting of the civil war, I guess :) -- a sick
attempt to joke).  I'll write you more in a private message.

Regards,
Marina


http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:49:38 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
In-Reply-To:  <004601bdf6f6$29603300$294b2599@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Joyce Jones wrote:

> I hate to hear a woman call another "bitch", as much as I
> hate to hear a black person call another "nigger" or a homosexual call
> another "dyke" or "fag".  These derogatory terms imply not only that the
> other person is bad or wrong or hateful but that they are even more evil
> because they're female, black or homosexual; as if a male white heterosexual
> villain is a better person in some basic way.

Exactly.  i could never get those "Bitch Goddess" bumper stickers.  I know
some women in my writing class who have those and consider them assertive.
To me, it feels like they have been taught so much self-hatred by the
society that they can only assert themselves on those terms.  Supposedly,
accepting a derogatory term like that and using it "with pride" somehow
disarms it from its hatefull meaning.  However, I think that using a word
that have negative meaning for most people, not matter how much you
convince yourself that you are "proud of it" is damaging.  If you want to
be proud of what you are, why call it something bad?  Can't one be a
goddess without being a bitch?

Concerning the insults, there are plenty of those non-gender-specific.
Like, "buttsmear" from the Tank Girl...

Marina
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:24:11 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         ME Hunter <hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.A41.4.03.9810140041280.58886-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
              (message from Marina on Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:49:38 -0500)

I think that one of the motivations behind the word "bitch" being reclaimed
and used as an assertive, empowering phrase is the attempt to get out frm
under the whole "good girl" stereotype that many of us struggle under. The
thing is, by being proud to be a bitch, a woman may be saying that it's ok
to be a powerful woman, to not be a good girl and stay in her place, to
assert her needs and desires. And if that earns her the epithet "bitch," so
be it, being a bitch isn't necessariy a bad thing.

I'm not saying that I feel this way. Or rather, I feel that it's fine to be
a bitch by this definition, but I don't feel any particular need to make
this a word in which I take pride. But I felt this discussion was missing
that element of the argument and wanted to share it.

E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:22:05 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Tolerance
In-Reply-To:  <e6acf6a3.36240a84@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I pretty much agree with you on everything below, Madrone.  I think we are
arguing about two different things.  You are saying that since women are
less often openly violent in real life, there is not point in changing
that by showing female violence in the movies.  What I am saying is that
it can be helpfull for women viewers to see someone who can stand up for
herself when necessary, so she would be more confident herself in an
extreme situation.  There are conditions -- like rape prevention -- where
in my opinion, women would benefit from being comfortable to use their
physical force.   This does not mean I advocate the violence for its sake
for women or for men.

 It's violence vs. self-defence issue.  I realize that you may not like
seeing violence of any kind on the screen.  But if a powerful character
that "kicks butt" would help some girl to stand up to her abusive father,
or say no to a rapist and makes sure he understands -- would you deny her
that chance?

To me, it all comes down to personal tastes.  Some people feel empowered
by seeing a woman blasting bad guys, others feel disgusted.  It's not a
question of the movie being feminist.  I personally feel like puking when
reading romance novels.  But if someone says they can be empowering to
some women -- God bless.  I am not going to fight against them or
pronounce them non-feminist just because they make me sick.  It's not my
kind of feminism, but it can be feminist as well, and I accept that.

People are different, you know.  Some think the most liberating factor to
a women is having a successful career.  Others feel that raising children
can be just as feminist and respectable.  Others think we sould not
sacrifice either and try to combine both.  I don't even know what I'd like
to do with my life, other than I don't want to be sent home and killed in
three months.  I think it is very important for feminist movement to learn
to respect our differences and don't consider each other a traitor for
supporting a way to empowerment one finds detestable.  There is that
neverending agrument on what is feminist and what is not, everywhere,
including this list.  i think that everything is feminist as long as it
recognizes women as humans on her own terms.  For some people it means
non-violent, for others -- lesbian, who cares?  There is no way we all are
going to come up with a universal definition of feminist because we are
too different.  The point is to accept each other even if we don't agree.

This does not mean we should not argue, we can argue all we want.  Even
when it ends up in flaming, we can always learn something from it.  But
just because someone's idea are totally opposite to mine, I can still
recognize that person as a feminist, simply of a different kind than
myself.  Can everyone here say that about me or someone else they disgaree
with?

We can fight, people, and it's OK.  As long as we don't push our personal
point of view as a dogma -- "the only true feminism".  We don't want to
end up like all those Christian denominations each of which considers
itself the only true faith and the others not Christian at all, do we?

As they say, I might hate what y'all are saying, but I'll give my life so
you would have the right to say it, you know.  But until I give my life,
i can still argue with you trying to explain my point :).

Thanks for your message, Madrone.

Marina

 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

> Marina, I always enjoy your posts and learn from them.  And I certainly think
> that we need to see all human characters with their warts intact.  I just
> don't like to see men's warts stuck onto women for the sake of a story.  And I
> do believe that the stories have a real affect on us, whether they are stories
> of a male god demanding the sacrifice of the life of his son and the removal
> of women from religious power, or science fiction where women do things that
> they rarely, if ever, do in real life.  I think the difference here is not
> only that I am willing to acknowledge that there IS a major disjunction of
> violence by gender, but also that I see a great deal of hope in that.  Because
> I think one thing we all agree on is that we want to stop this nonesense, and
> stop it now.
>
> Madrone
>

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:08:39 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      OT- Bosnia
In-Reply-To:  <v01510100b249cf160f2c@[208.131.137.147]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Realizing that this is off-topic and before Laura slaps me for writing
about this, I want to say something.  With all this hoopla about evil
Serbs, does it cross anyone's mind that _Serbian_ women were raped by
Moslim soldiers just as well?  That Serbian children was killed by both
Muslims and Croatians, too?  That both Muslims and Croatians performed
"ethnic cleansing"  -i.e. genocide of Serbs -- in their respective
enclaves as well?

Is everyone in US so naive to believe that in a civil war one side can be
any "nicer" than the two (or three, counting Albanians now) others?  As a
person who had witnessed a civil war very much like this first hand, aI
can bet you anything in the world -- it is not the case.  In civil war
liek this one, each side comtetes with the other in brutality and
atrocities, and the more people fall victim to that, the more soldiers
have personal reasons to do the same to their "enemy" civilians that had
been done to their own relatives.  So where are the reports about raped
Serbian women - did you ever ask yourself that?

of course I understand that a public brainwashing compaign dirceted to
dehumanize Serbs as a nation in case there'll have to be some bombs
dropped on them, so no one would feel too bad about it.  But do you
all really buy into this "demons vs. innocent victims" scheme?  You know,
Milosevic, whatever he does, is not Hitler or Saddam for two reasons:
1) he is not trying to take over the world, like Hitler;
2) he is not trying to occupy a neiborhood country like Saddam; as you
might remember, Yougoslavia was a legitimate country recognized by
everyone and actualy very much liked by the West for its disagreements
woth the Soviet Union.  How come after 50 years the West suddenly
discovers Serbs were occupying someone?  Why exactly it was OK 20 years
ago?

Basically, the situation at the Balcans is nothing very different from
Britain and Northern Ireland.  Those of you who live in England -- how
would you like having US bombing you sometime "for occupying the land
that rightfully belongs to Irish" and killing the local version of the
minority rebels -- the IRA? I bet that (the bombings) would fill you with
respect to the internationional community, would not it?
And how come no one is using UN forces to kick out the English from N.
Ireland? So what if there are Protestants living in there?  There
are Serbians living in Kosovo too.  If they have to get out of the
land they were born in, why should not you?

I'm not even going to get started about Israel, their occupation
and clashes with Palestinians.  Stupid Milosevic, should have made friends
with the right countries. Then he could have impaled his enemies on the
city squares, like Pol Pot in Kambodgia, and the world community would
happily look in another direction.

You know, I don't really care about Milosevic or whatever is awaiting him.
For what I see, Serbs have been pretty much doomed as a nation as soon
as US selected them as the Bad Guys, and there is nothing I can do
about that.   But even if Milosevic is the incarnation of Devil himself,
and his people are the evil inhuman force they are pictured as (all of
them, wholesale -- just like in a comic book) does it make it OK to rape
and torture Serbian woman?  And if not, how come no one is protesting
_that_?

Marina,
who does not really hope to convince anyone.

PS.  I agree with the first part of your message, Suzy, about choices. And
this is not a response to you specific message, just some thoughts on the
glorious ability of humans to think for themselves.

 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998,
SMCharnas wrote:

> If, indeed, it always does.  Note the most recent "solution" reached in
> Bosnia.  Milosovic is a thug, and all the talking and coaxing in the world
> is absolutely without effect with this guy and his cohort of murderers.  I
> bet all those Muslim women who were raped as a matter of war-making policy
> by Serb "soldiers" would have used guns to defend themselves and their
> daughters if they'd had the option -- and I am not about to make the judg-
> ment that they would have been wrong.  People of all sexes ought to have
> access to the whole range of human responses with which to run their own
> lives as best they can, however well or badly that turns out to be . . .

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:22:51 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
In-Reply-To:  <199810140624.CAA26708@apocalypse.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, ME Hunter wrote:

> I think that one of the motivations behind the word "bitch" being reclaimed
> and used as an assertive, empowering phrase is the attempt to get out frm
> under the whole "good girl" stereotype that many of us struggle under. The
> thing is, by being proud to be a bitch, a woman may be saying that it's ok
> to be a powerful woman, to not be a good girl and stay in her place, to
> assert her needs and desires. And if that earns her the epithet "bitch," so
> be it, being a bitch isn't necessariy a bad thing.

exactly.  by the way, have you noticed that ther is not a good word for a
strong woman?  Guys in this situation use the description "He is The Man."
Kind of more pleasant than "she is a bitch in a good sense", isn't it?

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:53:49 -0700
Reply-To:     lynnx@mc.net
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Heather Law <lynnx@MC.NET>
Organization: Interstellar Trading Company
Subject:      Re: OT- Bosnia
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, Serbian women were raped too. However, they were not kept in
concentration camps and raped repeatedly. This wasn't just a matter of
soldiers being told that women were spoils of war, but rape being used
as a deliberate war tactic. I had the misfortune to have to listen to an
idiot who didn't give a damn about women in general sounding off about
the Russian gangrapes in Germany after World War II. It was quite
obvious that he thought German women were the only victims. The fact
that women and children are attacked is one of the strongest reasons to
be against war, but two facts remain here. One is the deliberate
destruction of these women and the unwanted children resulting from the
barbarity-the second is the fact that no Serbian women would have been
raped if their own government had cared about their fate.
Carol Mitchell
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:48:48 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
In-Reply-To:  <6dd1a1e.362433ae@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

> Marina, sometimes I think you have lost all hope of individuals working
> together in ways that are productive and not harmful.  Perhaps you have seen
> few examples of this?

You might be right, Madrone.  In fact, you made me laugh, because it's
true.  The main way I have seen people "working together" in my life was
when would gang up on someone in order to put her down. Or plotting some
schemes together in order to get away more easily.

  I remain deeply concerned about your status here.  Can
> we help?  May we help?

Thank you, that would be great.  But i don't really know how.  I've got
this lawyer who is supposed to resubmit my asylum case.  If she's any good
in it and if she won't dump me because I cannot pay her, maybe things will
work out.  If not-- I don't really know what else to do.

Probably my positin on Bosnia would not help my future as a US resident,
either -- but hell, that's what I do.  When I was in grade school, I was
constantly "boycotted" by other kids (no one would talk to me and everyone
would pick on me) because I would say things like that the popular girls
were popular only because they were rich.  they were not pretty or smart
like everyone said, they were just rich, so that's why they all were
sucking up to them. They really hated me saying that for some reason.
Meanwhile the teachers were always ragging on me for "lacking the communal
spirit" (that was a Communist country, mind you). They called me an
"individual" which was a curse word, and kept telling me to be a part of
the class community instead of being so "separate" from other kids.  Like
those would accept me anyway.  I guess I did not change much since I was
eight years old :)

Marina

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:52:21 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: torture & other undesirables
In-Reply-To:  <15339e08.3624359c@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote:

>
> The work on brain development shows that environment (read: cultural norms)
> shapes the anatomy of the brain.  So all we have to do is decide what is human
> and head that direction.
>
> Yes?

Yes.  However, I don't know if we all can possibly agree on what is human.
The only people we can change are ourselves.  We can try to convince
others, but we cannot control their minds.  Which means we'll have to
accept them as they are unless they are really getting in our way, and
hope that we would mek a good enough example that they's want to become
like that as well.  maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think.

Marina

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:57:55 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: OT- Bosnia
Comments: To: Heather Law <lynnx@mc.net>
In-Reply-To:  <362474AD.11DA@mc.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Heather Law wrote:

> Serbian women would have been
> raped if their own government had cared about their fate.
> Carol Mitchell
>
Their own fault, huh?  Should have been born into a nation with a better
leader.  Rape is OK, as long the victims are Serbian, isn't it?  Oh
well, they are not humans anyway if they news are to be believed.  By the
way, what makes you think that Serbs were not detained
in concentration camps (and raped there)?  Because CNN did not show that?

Marina

http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:04:21 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Anthea Hartley Stanton <ajhs@USA.NET>
Subject:      Re: OT - Bosnia
Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Heather Law wrote:

> ...no Serbian women would have been  raped if their
> own government had cared about their fate.

That's grotesquely, foolishly untrue! Many Serbian women were deliberate
targets of Bosnian rape squads - the women were often selected for upholding
the rights of women (both Serbian and Bosnian) thus angering the Muslim
fundamentalists and their Iranian tutors. Like the Nazis in WWII, the Serbians
set up large concentration camps; like the Japanese, the Bosnians set up small
forced brothels; women suffered and died in both. Such brothels - each with
its little graveyard for 'used-up' victims - were particularly common in areas
where Iranian 'mercenaries' were fighting.

Serbian soldiers - murderous, evil and systematic rapists of Muslim women
though they might be - took extraordinary risks to rescue their countrywomen
from these brothels.

I met victims from both sides - a very few within hours of their ordeal. And I
couldn't see any difference between the anguish of raped Muslims or that of
raped Serbians.


AJ
Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net)
________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:42:17 +0200
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elethiomel <adaldan@TIN.IT>
Subject:      Re: OT Medicine
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 13-10-1998 19:49, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah said:

>This was most
>eloquently expressed by the title of a book I saw in a doctor's office:
>_Anatomy and Gynecology_. Gynecology is the medical study of women's bodies;
>anatomy is the medical study of the human body. (Look it up in a
>dictionary if
>you think I'm reading too much into this.) There is no branch of medicine
>dealing with men's bodies; that's just medicine.

Yes, there is. It's called Andrology. (But mostly men with genital
problems go to an urologist, since their genital apparatus is closely
bound up with the urinary one.)

Ginecology is not the same thing as the *anatomical study* of women's
bodies: it comprises anatomy, diagnostic, clinical studies, therapy and so
on. What you saw was most probably a book that dealt with how anatomical
studies are important for ginecology - you could have also "Anatomy and
Stomatology" or "Anatomy and Neurology" and so on.


Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel

Anna esta' en la linea
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:42:09 +0200
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elethiomel <adaldan@TIN.IT>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

At 12-10-1998 16:30, Jane Franklin said:

>Several (admittedly funny) recent posts seem to be setting up almost a
>name-calling situation....there's "us", the hip modern feminists who like
>violence, science, and science fiction, and then there's "them", the
>boring stodgy old semi-feminists who like unicorns and moonlight and the
>social sciences.  Forgive me for saying this, but the whole thing seems a
>little silly.

To my unending surprise, it's the *new* feminists who seem to be all for
softness in all fields. Obligatory softness. Mind you, I have nothing
against people who are against violent movies and books (of course, only
psychopath are in favour of violence *per se*), though I like them, who
dislike science and science fiction and think that social sciences are
epistemologically sounder and more politically correct, though I think
the opposite. I may disagree with them but I can civilly disagree with a
lot of people I have a lot in common with in other areas.

What really drives me mad, and goes against about all I hold dear, it's
saying that
this set of interlinked preferences is the natural lot of all human
beings with two X chromosomes. I honestly thought this was the mindset
feminism was set out to *fight*.


Anna F. Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel

Anna esta' en la linea
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:51:25 -0400
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jean Bocchino - North Port Library <bocchij@SNOOPY.TBLC.LIB.FL.US>
Subject:      Re: feminism and violence
In-Reply-To:  <2f2ebd2b.3623ff58@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Jim said:
"I'm equally applalled at the idea that might makes right..."

I think one of the fundamental problems that people who are fundamentally
opposed to violence face when they do come into power and try to make
'things' (sorry for the vague term) better, is that it's just as difficult
to make people do 'good' things as it is to make them stop doing 'bad'
things.  Frequently force seems the only answer...but also seems to fail,
even in fiction...(Herbert's jihad for instance...) I'm very intrigued
with the old concept of banishment....

JB
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:05:34 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elizabeth Burton <PBEK@AUSTINTX.NET>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you want a good guard dog, then you want a bitch. They are much more
territorial than the male and much more protective of the pack.

Which is why I, for one, don't find the word "bitch" a derogatory term.

OTOH, whether a given bitch will make a good breeder is almost totally
hereditary -- some are born good mothers and some will refuse to feed their
litters to the point where the puppies have to be given to foster mothers.
So much for "females are nurturing by nature."
Lisa
Xanadu Scriveners
http://members.tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html
Pager
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062745
ICQ SFF Writers' Group
http://groups.icq.com/group.asp?no=409617
The Dance of Light and Magic
http://www.delphi.com/Castle_of_Light

>Exactly.  i could never get those "Bitch Goddess" bumper stickers
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:19:09 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Elizabeth Burton <PBEK@AUSTINTX.NET>
Subject:      Re: OT- Bosnia
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The US public gets its information from the media. The media has become the
tool of corporate conglomerates interested in the bottom line. Therefore,
the US media, in general,  provides information that sells newspapers and
draws advertisers. That is the single basic criterion for what you read and
hear and see.

Now, with that in mind, add in the fact that the majority of reporters and
editors graduated from journalism schools in a country that barely teachs
its own history and geography, much less that of the rest of the world. So,
instead of taking the opportunity to educate their audience on the facts,
they simply turn it into entertainment. And that means there has to be a
"good guy" and a "bad guy."

Finally, the bottom line being what it is, they don't want to spend too much
money in the process, so they keep staffing to a minimum -- and pick their
best (read: most aggressive) writers rather than finding someone
sufficiently knowledgeable -- and those people only have so much time and
can only be in so many places at once.

Shall I go on?

Lisa
Xanadu Scriveners
http://members.tripod.com/~Borogrove/editor.html
Pager
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16062745
ICQ SFF Writers' Group
http://groups.icq.com/group.asp?no=409617
The Dance of Light and Magic
http://www.delphi.com/Castle_of_Light


>Their own fault, huh?  Should have been born into a nation with a better
>leader.  Rape is OK, as long the victims are Serbian, isn't it?  Oh
>well, they are not humans anyway if they news are to be believed.  By the
>way, what makes you think that Serbs were not detained
>in concentration camps (and raped there)?  Because CNN did not show that?
>
>Marina
>
>http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
>
>                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
>                        is selling at the time."
>                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:57:31 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jane Franklin <JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I've been thinking about this whole thing in odd moments--that is, how I
reconcile feminism and violence inherent in people.

WARNING--WHAT FOLLOWS IS LONG AND USES PERSONAL EXAMPLES...YOU MAY WANT TO
SKIP IT.

I do think there are some limits to feminism.  That is, I don't consider
Margaret Thatcher (my Halloween dress-up character, btw) a feminist just
because she's a woman and powerful.  My understanding of feminism is that
is does not encourage women to screw other people over, claw their way to
the top, perpetuate racism, classism and homophobia and so forth.  Women
who are feminists may do these things but that does not mean, to me, that
those things are part of feminism.  And I don't have to like a behavior
just because it's a woman doing it.

I don't think that women are inherently non-violent or that men are
inherently violent--at least not enough to make a difference.  People may
have instincts, but we also have reason, which overrides those instincts
when the instincts are counterproductive.  I think that bad violence (that
is, not soccer, some competition, martial arts, or neccessary self
defence) is a result of bad social structures, which we can ameliorate a
bit with effort.  Both men and women suffer from bad social structures,
and both men and women can take advantage of these structures to exploit
others, although it's easier for men to do this than for women.  Think of
Maggie Thatcher or Camillie Paglia.  (As an academic myself, I despise her
whole mediagenic routine, and her interpretation of Spencer is VERY
suspect.)

In terms of evil PC feminists who won't let you be competitive or
whatever...I've had conflict with some feminists myself on occasion.  
Sometimes I felt like we didn't speak the same language.  After a lot of
soul searching, I decided that there were a mixture of causes.  One is
that I am almost pathologically competitive.  I like to win, and I
evaluate almost everything in a sort of hierarchical way--I'm doing
better, more moral, smarter, or whatever, that that person, but less so
than the other.  People who found me too competitive were right, and my
obscessive need to be the best was wearing me out.  That's something I'm
trying to let go of a bit, with limited success.  (Why am I burdening you
with personal narrative?  It's easier to explain by example, I suppose)

I also figured that a lot of these feminists who were very doctrinaire
were young and insecure, or just insecure.  They needed the fence of
doctrine to feel safe.  I've done the same thing with other beliefs.  
It's a phase you go through and often grow out of.

When I encounter the new hip violent breed of feminist, I feel pretty
threatened, because I feel like I have to agree with them or somehow have
my beliefs totally invalidated.  I feel pressured to like violent movies
and "woman postitive" pornography and a lot of other products of the
capitalist machine. (and while I have no truck with conventional
communism, I still have serious doubts about capitalism...communism may
have collapsed, but from my (impoverished) neighborhood capitalism is
rather shakey on its feet as well) And I feel very resentful of this
because I feel like it's more about fashion than about theory.  And I feel
that with all this "we can wear spike heels and lipstick and still be
feminist" I'm getting dragged right back into having to think about my
appearance all the time, and dragged right back into competition and sore
feet.  I feel really pressured to have the right response to consumer
culture, the right response being this irritating post-modern glee in
trash.  (This is turning into quite a rant...)  I get bored with trash.  
Sit-coms bore me.  Amusingly tacky shoes hurt my feet.

Why did I write all this?  I suppose I just wanted to illustrate that one
can feel just as much cultural pressure to conform to new feminism as to
old.  And it's full of contradictions, since I love dressing up and have
several pairs of foolish shoes.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:08:18 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jane Franklin <JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

They also say "a feminist woman would not _want_ to be a President.  The
politics are too dirty and competitive and against the nice, sharing
nature of women.  Besides, that would be a collaboration with
the enemy -- working for the hated patriarchial system".


(Above is quoted, but I don't know how to make those nifty quote marks) To
tell the truth, I really don't think that having a woman president is the
best answer.  Women who claw their way to the top tend to be much like men
who do the same--rich, self-serving, arrogant, and deaf to the needs of
actual people.  If we could magically zap a feminist into office that
might be different.  Or if we could radially change the political system
so that one wasn't so soiled by the climb to the top.  But if becoming a
successful politician in the United States is so easy on the integrity,
then why don't we have politicians who vote for health care and workers'
comp?  Because they're men?  But that's arguing that there's some
essential difference between men and women, that men are pathologically
incapable of compassion.  I prefer to think it's the system.  Which is why
I do political work that does not involve running for office.  In which I
am joined by a variety of men, as well as women.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:23:57 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jane Franklin <JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I think that for an awful lot of Americans, movies and television are a
huge part of their experience of the world, and of how they understand the
world.  Especially as people in cities socialize less and less, and as
people read less and less.  And as extended families disappear.  I know
that when I was younger, it took a long time to understand that things
don't work like they do in the movies.  Even now, there are still
judgements I make based on the principles of drama rather than on good
sense.

So actually I am far more troubled by movies that show violence
unrealistically than by news reels.  I'd far rather see footage of Nanjing
than some shoot-em-up where lots of anonymous small brown people die and
the hero is some moosey white American.  I really do think that people
take a lot of opinions from the movies.  After all, we are influenced
constantly by what we see around us, and there are plenty of things, like
violence (and in the suburbs non-white people) that are encountered most
often on the screen.  A movie is not just its violence rating.  Who dies?  
How?  Why?  What do we know about them?  How does their death fit into the
plot?  Is the messy fact of their death supposed to make us feel good?  
Is death needed for the plot, or is it used as a cheap way to make the
audience excited?  And who is making this movie?  What are their corporate
interests?  Who do they want to sell to?  If I don't like this movie, is
it the logic of the movie I dislike, or the ick factor?

I think it's really criminal to treat violence as if it doesn't
matter...show it if you like, but don't pretend it's trivial.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:34:00 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jane Franklin <JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tolerance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I'm getting really anxious about you
being deported, Marina.  Is there anything anyone else can do?  Political
people we can pressure?  Perhaps the senator in the state you're in?  Or
the local INS rep?  I have heard that if you pressure a senator or someone
about a specific case, you can get better results quicker than working on
general issues.  I hope you're working with some of your local immigration
activism groups.  I'm sorry to be nosy, since I don't know you, but I've
been reading up on Tajikistan since you started writing about it here, and
I'm really concerned.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:44:50 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Cathy DeLuca <cd@CME.ORG>
Subject:      Lara Croft
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Marina wrote the following about Lara Croft:

>Even though the company that came up with it was so desperate to make the
>game marketable to boys that they:
>
>a) made her have a bust that would make Barbi look like flat. It
>puzzles me how she manages to bounce around with those watermelons on her
>chest, unless they are filled with helium or something.  At the same time,
>since there are women wearing tripple-D bras, it won't be fair to say
>that they cannot be superheroes, so I guess we cannot consider her
>unbelievable just for that;


but do most women who wear tripple-D bras have 10 inch waists?...

Cathy DeLuca
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:24:13 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Keith <kmhouse@HALCYON.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT- Bosnia
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.A41.4.03.9810140123190.58886-100000@broncho.ucok.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Just have to say I agree with you, Marina.  Without the clear "bad guys",
it just might become apparent that any world court has no laws and no
jurisdiction other than force.  The victors determine what laws the
vanquished should have obeyed.  U.S. representatives expressed their own
country's respect for international justice by walking out in a body from
the U.N. assembly that censured the United States for mining Nicaragua's
harbors.

No international court is going to judge Muslims for their treatment of
raped women.  The U.S. media coverage (or for that matter, Canadian, U.K,
etc) ignored that aspect of the rapes the Serbs committed - that a raped
woman was abhorrent to Muslim men, that she was usually blamed and cast
off for an act in no way her fault.  Rape, especially in war, is
frequently an act committed by men against men across the body of a woman.
The Serbs' crimes were made doubly effective by the destruction this
attitude of Muslim men towards "damaged" women did to their communities.

Kathleen

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Marina wrote:

>
> You know, I don't really care about Milosevic or whatever is awaiting him.
> For what I see, Serbs have been pretty much doomed as a nation as soon
> as US selected them as the Bad Guys, and there is nothing I can do
> about that.   But even if Milosevic is the incarnation of Devil himself,
> and his people are the evil inhuman force they are pictured as (all of
> them, wholesale -- just like in a comic book) does it make it OK to rape
> and torture Serbian woman?  And if not, how come no one is protesting
> _that_?
>
> Marina,
> who does not really hope to convince anyone.
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:35:41 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Merris, Rhian M" <RHIAN.M.MERRIS@CPMX.SAIC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Laura Croft, Ripley,and the wrong types of a feminist hero
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I haven't posted to the list for a while, but I wanted to give some bravos
and applause to this post.

Hear, hear!  (or is it here, here!)  :)

Rhian
rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com

P.S. Yeah, I know I'm violating etiquette by copying the post.  Sorry if it
inconveniences anyone.  I just liked it too much.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU]
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 7:09 PM
> To:   FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [*FSFFU*] Laura Croft, Ripley,and the wrong types of a
> feminist hero
>
>  On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:
>
> > I was wondering what peoples thought are on that charater from Tomb
> > Raider.... damn it I cant remember her... hang on... Laura Croff.
> > So what do people think of her... is she a good thing? Or not?
> > For years Ive hated that most computer games only allow you to be a male
> > character and show the female only as a thing to be saved, unless your
> > playing something like that Barbie game!
> > So what do people think or Laura Croff?
>
> Laura Croft.  A British aristocrat turned archeologist, if I am not
> mistaken, roaming the world in search of treasures, while solving puzzles
> and battling various evil creatures.  Long hair in a braid and a pair of
> humongous boobs.
>
> As the only female hero in a computer game (apart from the couple of women
> in my favorite Mortal Combat), I think she is great.  Even though the
> company that came up with it was so desperate to make the game marketable
> to boys (apparently assuming that girls are only interested in virtual
> makeovers and cute girly fairy-tale stuff), that they:
>
> a) made her have a bust that would make Barbi look like flat. It
> puzzles me how she manages to bounce around with those watermelons on her
> chest, unless they are filled with helium or something.  At the same time,
> since there are women wearing tripple-D bras, it won't be fair to say
> that they cannot be superheroes, so I guess we cannot consider her
> unbelievable just for that;
>
> b) as the end of the game, as a prize to the player who manages to
> complete all levels, she is pictured in a nightie, as opposed to her usual
> shorts and a tank top;
>
> c) the pathetic advertizing campaign of the Tomb Rider, struggling to
> promote the "girl-hero" among the tough-guy action games (one of which
> uses "Kill Laura Croft!" as its main slogan, by the way) puts the main
> accent on the idea of Laura as the player's "playmate" of sorts.
>
> For example, one of the game's creators explained in his interview with
> the Newsweek that they did not want to release a multiplayer internet
> version of Tomb Rider because it would "destroy the intimate connection
> between the player and Laura" or something pretty damn close.  Another
> example -- the TV commercial, "Tomb Rider: come where the boys are!"
>
> In other words, the computer game industry so far would rather create a
> thousand versions of virtual tea parties than admit, even in theory, that
> girls might enjoy violent adventure games.  However, considering the fact
> that half of the feminist community itself is adamant about proving at any
> cost that women have a "different, gentler nature", it is hard to expect
> the male-dominated industry to hold a more progressive view.  Since
> even according to _women_, girls are supposed to be interested only in
> peace, love, and the spirit of sisterhood as opposed to crude "male" fun
> of butt-kicking, it is not suprising there is not one single action game
> right now that would be directed at girl teenagers (well, maybe for the
> exception of those who might be interested in seeing Laura Croft in her
> lingerie).
>
> This attitude is predominant not only in games, by the way, but in the
> absolute majority of action movies, even those deemed feminist -- the only
> possible "excuse" for a woman to get violent is to "protect a child".
> By the way, since someone here mentioned Aliens, that scene where Ripley
> says "Get away from her, bitch!" saving the poor little girl from the big
> bad alien queen, is in my opinion, the most disgusting part of the whole
> theme of the series.  It all comes down to the idea that no matter how
> strong, smart, independent, and assertive a woman can be, her only purpose
> is still to be (or play the role of) a protective mother.  Women just
> cannot be concerned with anything other than taking care of children --
> even in science fiction, and even in a feminist one (like, say, the Tank
> Girl).  Could have just as well stayed in the kitchen and be mommies
> there.
>
> Hate to remind this to everybody, but violence is no more of "male" treat
> than wearing pants, cutting one's hair short, and working outside the
> house.  Each of these activities used to be (and still are to some people)
> as "contrary" to "female nature" as physical assertiveness and
> individualism is today to the significant part of the feminist movement.
> It's hard to believe how many women consider figures like Joan of Ark (or
> GI Jane, for that matter) nothing but "honorary males", whatever in the
> Hell that means, as opposed to "true" female heroes that are supposed to
> be feeding the poor, saving animals, and rallying for the world peace
> while attending to their family duties.
>
> It is true that women have not had that much opportunity to participate in
> the political struggles and military conflicts in the recent
> history.  Neighter they were allowed to wear pants and vote.  Does that
> mean that the latter activities are also "unbecoming" of a woman?  How
> exactly does physical fighting makes a woman more "mannish" than say,
> being an engineer?
>
> In my opinion -- and observations -- most women detest violence simply
> because they were raised to believe that since they are "weaker" any
> conflict is bound to result with them losing.  In other words, any
> confrontation -- emotional, intellectual, or physical -- is automatically
> associated with abuse.  To many women the idea that they can actually
> win in a fight, be it a physical, political, or a business one, is
> uncomprehensible.  If you believe that you can never win in a conflict, no
> wonder you would hate the very idea of getting into one.  This fear is
> thoroughly enforced by the society, making sure that those women who dare
> to be strong are punished not only by the patriarchy in the face of men,
> but also by women, including the "enlightened" ones.
>
> The latter do believe in women's rights, but condemn the "too assertive"
> women for choosing "unwomanly" ways of expressing their strength, and
> exclude them from the women's cause.  Since the heroes of this sort are
> not really women, they are "Schwartzeneggers in drag", they
> cannot be feminist.  "Real" feminists are all environmentalist,
> pacifistic, and community-oriented. And often more intolerant towards
> "violent femmes" than men themselves.
>
> I do realize than people are different.  Some like romance novels, others
> prefer slasher movies.  However, the personal tastes (or more
> likely distastes) towards certain things  do not make these things
> non-feminist per se. Personally, I hated the ideas presented in Black Wine
> (beautifully written as it was).  In my opinion, Ea's doing nothing to
> save her family and Essa's walking away from her people after getting
> them in trouble -- all for the sake of "not becoming like their enemies"
> -- was selfish and irresponsible, to say the least.  It's the same as
> watching your family slaughtered in front of your eyes and doing nothing
> to stop the people who do that (by blowing off their heads if you have to)
> because you "don't want to become like them".  The two main characters of
> Black Wine, in my opinion, did exactly that.
>
> However, just because the supposedly positive characters of Black Wine
> were turning my stomach,  it did not make the book less feminist.  It had
> strong female heroes. They might have been assholes, in my opinion, but
> they still promoted the feminist idea of women as people, instead of the
> usual sex symbol / mother props they are pictured as in mainstream
> fiction. So, feminist it was.
>
> You know, when people declare something non-feminist just because it does
> not fit in their ideal of feminism "as it should be", it looks just like
> the attitude of religious fanatics towards the things they don't like.
> Those never say that _they_ don't like something -- be it rock music
> or abortions -- or that it is against their beliefs, they say that it is
> against God.  The same is when some feminists do not like the idea of
> women asserting their strength in certain way (say, by going to a war,
> or becoming a successful politician/businessperson). They don't simply
> say "I would not do this, because I am against violence / not interested
> in political games". They say: "The women who do it are not feminist
> figures, their are nothing more than male heroes in drag".
>
> Marina,
>
> whose favorite childhood toy was a gun, to get which she had to throw a
> fit in the store to convince her shocked grandfather that it was really
> something she wanted, despite her "being a girl".
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
>
>                 "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
>                         is selling at the time."
>                                                 Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:51:20 +0000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Allyson Shaw <allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jane Franklin wrote:
>
> I think that for an awful lot of Americans, movies and television are a
> huge part of their experience of the world, and of how they understand
> the world.

I'd far rather see footage of Nanjing than some shoot-em-up where lots of
anonymous small brown people die and the hero is some moosey white
American.  I really do think that people take a lot of opinions from the
movies.

This is well said.  THis is anecdotal information, but it was significant
to me.  When I was teaching composition at Junior College, I had many
students who were also enrolled in the Police Academy.  I would usually
ask them to write why they wanted to be policemen.  I remember one student
saying he knew he wanted to be a policeman after seeing the movie Colors,
and knowing he had to "help people on drugs," who are depicted in the film
as gang members who are black and Latino, and the cops are of course white
men who are "conflicted" over their enforcement styles. So yes-- these
movies do affect peoples views of the world in frightening ways-- often
the students would bring up movies and TV shows as evidence right
alongside personal experience without differentiating the two.

But I think that you saying you would rather see footage of Nanjing is
significant-- We rarely get a picture of what it going on in the world on
the nightly news-- and when we do, it is lopsided and depicted as chaos
that only US intervention can put straight. But your post also got me
thinking about the phenomenon of "real" TV cops shows, etc. That are a
kind of frightening "infotainment."  They complicate this issue of fact
and fiction further.

=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:00:27 +0000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Allyson Shaw <allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jane Franklin wrote:
>
> They also say "a feminist woman would not _want_ to be a President.  The
> politics are too dirty and competitive and against the nice, sharing
> nature of women.  Besides, that would be a collaboration with
> the enemy -- working for the hated patriarchial system".
>
> (Above is quoted, but I don't know how to make those nifty quote marks)
>

You may not need this info-- but you make the quote marks by either
hitting the "quote" button on the toolbar when you are composing your
mail message-- or go to your Mail Preferences and then to the
composition index tab.  THere should be an option there you can turn on
which says "automatically quote message when responding" and then it
will quote the whole message from the sender in the body of your message
and you can edit at will.  This is for Netscape, but other email
programs are similar, I'm sure.

Maybe you already knew all that!  Sorry if it was extraneous.
--A
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:24:30 +0000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Allyson Shaw <allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jane Franklin wrote:

"When I encounter the new hip violent breed of feminist, I feel pretty
threatened,  I feel pressured to
like violent movies and "woman postitive" pornography and a lot of other
products of the capitalist
machine.And I feel very resentful of this because I feel like it's more
about fashion than about theory."

I apologize if I've really chopped up your message here for the purpose
of summary, but I really felt it touched on something important.  (I
enjoyed your well-reasoned posts by the way).

When I was an undergrad taking women's studies classes, there were many
many arguments, some more personal than constructive.  But on the whole,
I don't see what people mean by Old-school PC feminist-- the students
and teachers in my classes were of all ages and sexualities, though the
racial mix left something to be desired... But it was hard to group them
as 2nd wave, 3rd wave, etc.

It wasn't until I got to graduate school where I started to "group"
feminisms for the sake of ordering my own thoughts.  This "soft"
feminism people are describing was something people in school called
"West Coast Feminism"-- the essentialist earth-mother thing.  It seemed
to me the general consensus in grad school was that we were in this
"third wave of feminism" that was leaving essentialist notions behind.
        But I was troubled by the media picture of the "new feminists" or
"fuck-me feminists" featured in GQ and Details, but also in more
respectable journals like ReSearch's Angry Women, which was really
anti-feminist in a way.  It seemed that these lipstick wearing,
high-heel stepping feminists (and anti-feminists like Camilia Paglia--
whose interviews seem designed to bait feminists and are always
reductive-- plus she's always wearing leather or holding a whip, etc.)
are easily marketed, and have concocted themselves as a response against
PC feminists, and the myth that feminism is inherently anti-sex and
mushy touchy-feely and without a sense of humor.

(And what does PC, really mean, anyway? IT began as a leftist
self-mocking term poking fun at lifestyle politics, but now isn't it
just a reductive right-wing term?)

Like Jane, I am also suspect of this co-optation of Riot Girl aesthetics
(i.e. Spice Girls, Tank Girl (though I like the comics) etc.) and the
new "sexy" feminism.  Like Mike pointed out in his post about Aliens,
it's more akin to sexplotation than feminism, and shouldn't be mistaken
for a deliberate political stance.  I agree with Jane, it's a fashion, a
fantasy of power, and pretty limited.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:39:41 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
In-Reply-To:  <s6246795.059@famprac.umn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> I do think there are some limits to feminism.  That is, I don't consider
Margaret Thatcher (my Halloween dress-up character, btw) a feminist just
because she's a woman and powerful.

I understand where you are coming from, Jane.  This is kind of the way I
feel about conservative female politicians myself.  However...

When I was 10 years old, Margaret Thatcher was my hero.  I did not know
much, if anything, about her political views, but she was the only woman
head of the government I saw on TV and the possibility that a woman
could get that far was more than encouraging to me.

Right now, the head of my department is an ultra-conservative woman with
pro-life posters in her office, a degree completely irrelevant to her
position, and general impression of not being particularly intelligent.  I
never stop wondering how did she even get that job. However, the fact that
she is a head of a department in a university make it easier, just by the
fact of her existence, for people to get used to the idea of a woman in
charge.  Which, in my opinion, is good.  She might be backwards, but her
presence might help a more enlightened woman to become a department chair
when she comes along.

Not all powerful women are feminist.  But not all conservative women are
anti-feminist either.  And even when they are, they still indirectly help
the feminist cause, which I believe is recognizing women as people,
despite their political orientation and personal character.  Even if they
hate people like me, by being there they give me more chance to achive
something, too.  Which kind of justifies their presence in the ecosystem,
I guess.  Even those like Camille Paglia (yuck! yuck!).

>My understanding of feminism is that is
>does not encourage women to screw other people over, claw their way to
>the top, perpetuate racism, classism and homophobia and so forth.

I might be wrong, but I think it has more to do with general humanism.
Since kindness and moral integrity is not unique to one gender, I don't
think it would be right to bind the things you mention to the specific
struggle for one gender's rights.

I don't know if i explain this well, but no ideology directly
encourages screwing other people over.  Not doing that is kind of a part
of being a self-respecting human, I think.  The specific goal of feminism
to me, is to apply the same rules to men and women alike.  Not to treat
people better or worse depending on their gender.

I don't think that Margaret Thatcher is a feminist in the active sense.
She did not really do or even tried to do anything to help women even in
conservative circles to achive what she did.  Nor did she appear too
concerned about the situation of women in general.  But she obviously did
believe that a woman can make it not any worse than a man, even if was one
singular woman -- herself.  Which I think makes it possible to call her an
extremely self-centered, unconscious feminist, whose only cause is her own
rights.  But even if she is not even that, I think her presence did a lot
to promote the goals of feminism, whether she liked or not.

You know, patriarchy exists -- and prospers -- despite the fact that men
hold all kinds of views possibly imaginable.  Some of the most
progressive male radicals are just as sexist as conservative men, if not
worse.  I've heard about a 70's human rights leader who had said that the
position of women in his movement was "prone".  Apparently even fighting
for social justice does not necesserily makes one feminist.  At the same
time, I think a truly feminist society (and the movement that builds it)
can have a place for all women, including those who are not feminist at
all.


> Women who are
>feminists may do these things but that does not mean, to me, that those
>things are part of feminism.  And I don't have to like a behavior just
>because it's a woman doing it.

I think the same.  However, i don't always feel I have to  hate her for
that behavior or call her anti-feminist for that.  She can have her own
vision of feminism, and I cannot say that mine is always right and hers is
always wrong.  As long as she respects my right to think differently,
and does not try to prove I am antifeminist for disagreeing with her.

About the pressure from those who want to use lipstick and be considered
feminist -- you don't have to be like them, after all. I think the problem
is with the general notion that there is only one ideal type of women and
everyone should strictly adhere to that.  If someone want to wear high
heels and be a feminist and I don't wear high heels, it does not mean I
can't be a feminist.  It's not like some street gang colors, to be used
for identification, so why do we have to be all the same?

It's interesting that you find younger feminist more dogmatic.  For what
I've seen, it's usually the other way around -- people who are older are
sometimes less willing to accept changes (often using the argument that
they had been fighting for the cause while you were "still in your
diapers")  But I guess it depends.

talking about pressure in general, I usually try to make my own decisions
and stick by them, no matter how "politically incorrect" they might seem
to my feminist friends.  For instance, I always shaved my legs and I
always will.  I don't care if it's an invention of patriarchy or
whatever.  I don't like the way my legs look with the hair on them, so
away it goes.  If I feel like decorating my face, I'll put all makeup I
want on it. And if people see it as a transgression -- well, they just
have to get over themselves.  It works the other way around, too -- when i
don't feel like brushing my hair I don't, even before going to work.  if
someone thinks I "don't look like a girl" because of that -- too bad.

Pressure can be very difficult to deal with.  But the only way to do it is
to build one's inner strength.  Trying to make others stop putting it on
you, I think, is a waste of time.

At some point in my life, i realized that there was not other person
exactly like me, and there was not going to be.  So I either had to accept
people different as  they were, or be alone. The important thing was stop
trying to change myself in order to be accepted.  It never worked, anyway.

I don't know if any of this makes sense, but anyway.

Marina


http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:01:20 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Marina <my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: feminism, fantasy, sf
In-Reply-To:  <3624A60F.1A70@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Allyson Shaw wrote:

> Like Jane, I am also suspect of this co-optation of Riot Girl aesthetics
> (i.e. Spice Girls, Tank Girl (though I like the comics) etc.) and the
> new "sexy" feminism.  Like Mike pointed out in his post about Aliens,
> it's more akin to sexplotation than feminism, and shouldn't be mistaken
> for a deliberate political stance.  I agree with Jane, it's a fashion, a
> fantasy of power, and pretty limited.

I still think it is more about personal taste that anything else.  Why
would it bother you that other feminists wear lipstick?  I don't feel
obliged to wear high heels just because "other feminists do", what are we,
a gang? Don't you think that even making such a big deal over the
lifestyle choices is kind of limited, too?

By the way, Spice Girls is not sexploitation, it's just plain crap.

I still don't get it, why it is that _all_ feminists have to be either in
leather and fishnets, or Plain Janes with duct-taped glasses.  I don't
tell other people what they should wear, which music to listen to, or what
movies to like "if they want to be considered feminists."  What gives them
the right to tell me?

Why is it people are so obsessed with controlling each other in every
little thing?  If we want a person to stop wearing something because it
bothers us that we don't want to do the same, how is it different from
those who in 1950's arrested beatniks for wearing red pants?

Marina

 http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html

                "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
                        is selling at the time."
                                                Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:03:55 CDT
Reply-To:     a-quick@carthage.edu
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Angela Quick <a-quick@CARTHAGE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Lara Croft
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

And no visible means of support, so to speak?

Angela
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:56:53 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Lara Croft
In-Reply-To:  <v0310280db24a4bd552fd@[209.70.103.166]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Well I do *grin*...........NOT!

At 11:44 14/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Marina wrote the following about Lara Croft:
>
>>Even though the
>>company that came up with it was so desperate to make the game marketable
>>to boys that they:
>>
>>a) made her have a bust that would make Barbi look like flat. It
>>puzzles me how she manages to bounce around with those watermelons on her
>>chest, unless they are filled with helium or something.  At the same time,
>>since there are women wearing tripple-D bras, it won't be fair to say
>>that they cannot be superheroes, so I guess we cannot consider her
>>unbelievable just for that;
>
>
>but do most women who wear tripple-D bras have 10 inch waists?...
>
>Cathy DeLuca
>
>

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:35:52 -0700
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Jennifer Krauel <jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM>
Subject:      BDG: other representations of gender?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm wondering if there are other examples of books that attempt to depict
alternate models of human genders, and how they compare with Shadow Man.
I'm more interested here in gender than sexual orientation, though both are
addressed in Shadow Man.

One example as I mentioned before is Halfway Human, where we see the effect
of "absence" of gender.  In a sense, it's a three-gendered society, even if
they don't recognize it, at least during the story line.  It is also like
Shadow Man in that it focuses on the effect of repression of gender diversity.

Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis stories also use a third gender, which serves
as a kind of genetic waring blender.  Over the three books we see the
integration of this alien model with human genders, but it's more shown as
the effect on specific individuals rather than a society as I recall.

I understand that Stephen Leigh's Dark Water's Embrace also includes some
form of alternate gender representation, but I haven't read it yet.

There are also books that involve individuals changing gender, such as Le
Guin's classic Left Hand of Darkness (I think that's the one) or Tanith
Lee's Drinking Sapphire Wine.  But these don't necessarily play with the
basic two-gender model to the same extent.

I really couldn't come up with any other books that attempt what Scott has
attempted, and that in itself surprised me.  Lots of opportunity here,
clearly.  Perhaps others can name some books I have overlooked.

Jennifer
jkrauel@actioneer.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:29:04 +1000
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" <phoenix@HEMLOCK.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Cyberculture
In-Reply-To:  <35B7483B.65C85067@athenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thoughts on Cyberculture.
What is it? What effect does it have on society? (especially women)?

~*If you're not living on the edge,
         you're taking up too much space.*~
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:47:30 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 5:18:19 AM, you wrote:

<< May we help?>>

good thought.

phoebe
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:43:46 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 2:23:03 AM, Madrone wrote:

<<And I do believe that the stories have a real affect on us>>

I've been thinking about this in connection with the rape/violence/women vs
men stuff that is rampant on Lifetime TV -- the Channel for Women.  Struck me
two ways:
1) showing the violence is "educational."  Yeah yeah, we all know about it,
but it is so pervasive on this channel at least, that there may be some women
who learn that they are not alone. and
2) does this violence against women de-sensitize us the way male rip 'em
movies seems to be doing.

I'm still thinking about this.  But I throw it out for debate.  On the one
hand exposing the extent of violence against women is a good thing, but the
fct that it is media dramatized makes me uncomfortable.

Any thoughts?

lightly,
phoebe
zozie@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:52:17 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

My best swear word comes from Koko -- remember her?  The female chimp who
learned sign language?

Well, when she was mad at someone, she signed "green slime."  Superior!
genderless, evocative, stinky.  good stuff.

smiling
phoebe
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:56 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Phoebe Wray <Zozie@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 7:30:37 AM, you wrote:

<<exactly.  by the way, have you noticed that ther is not a good word for a
strong woman?  Guys in this situation use the description "He is The Man."
Kind of more pleasant than "she is a bitch in a good sense", isn't it?>>

What's wrong with "She is The Woman"?  A magazine, and many many women, made
Ms something printed on forms.

phoebe
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:02:10 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Oct 1998 to 11 Oct 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 12:56:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<< If she's any good
 in it and if she won't dump me because I cannot pay her, maybe things will
 work out.  If not-- I don't really know what else to do. >>


Anybody have any suggestions here?  There must be some feminist groups who
have lawyers?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:04:15 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT- Bosnia
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 1:05:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes:

<<
 > Serbian women  >>


Is there something we can do here?  I mean, I am dead tired of all this
torture and rape.  I don't care who is being tortured and raped or why, I want
it to stop and I want it to stop now.  Right now.

Anybody have any ideas?  I'm serious.

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:57:22 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Rebecca <hathor@FLINK.COM>
Subject:      Re: BDG: other representations of gender?
In-Reply-To:  <2053777@flc.flink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello, all!

I'm brand new on the list.  I suppose I ought to lurk a while and get a
feel for the territory, but I'm working with alternate models of gender.  I
am using _Changing Ones, Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America_
as my inspiration.  It's a recent hardcover by Will Roscoe.  He won the
Margaret Mead award for his first book _The Zuni Man-Woman_.

Another science fiction that deals with multiple genders:  If I remember
correctly Rebecca Ore's series, Becoming Human, had at least one alien
species with three genders.  I seem to remember the human protagonist
living with a 3 gender family.  I can't remember if it became temporarily a
menage a quatre.

I am working on a epic fantasy with something like 5 different ethnic
groups.  One recognizes four possible genders.  Much of the heroine's
adolescent problems stem from the fact that her father refuses to
acknowledge her as being fourth gender.  Eventually she loses her place in
that society and has to go out into the wide, wicked world.  There are
other characters who suffer because their society doesn't offer a gender
choice.

I don't know the reference to Shadow Man, but I am eager to see where this
thread will go.

Rebecca



At 09:23 PM 10/14/98 CST, you wrote:
>I'm wondering if there are other examples of books that attempt to depict
>alternate models of human genders, and how they compare with Shadow Man.
>I'm more interested here in gender than sexual orientation, though both are
>addressed in Shadow Man.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:18:55 EDT
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         "Demetria M. Shew" <DMadrone@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Tolerance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/14/98 8:33:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes:

<< Excuse me for jumping in here, but I'm getting really anxious about you
being deported, Marina.  Is there anything anyone else can do?  Political
people we can pressure?  Perhaps the senator in the state you're in?   >>


Could we e-mail the Senator or is that a lame idea?

Madrone
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:46:09 -0500
Reply-To:     "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Sender:       "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
              <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
From:         Michael Marc Levy <levymm@UWEC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: words that put us in our place
In-Reply-To:  <375da4b.36257171@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Phoebe Wray wrote:

> My best swear word comes from Koko -- remember her?  The female chimp who
> learned sign language?
>
> Well, when she was mad at someone, she signed "green slime."  Superior!
> genderless, evocative, stinky.  good stuff.
>
> smiling
> phoebe
>

Not to be too pedantic, but Koko is a gorilla, not a chimp. Some of us
primates consider this an important difference.

Mike Levy