From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Dec 29 16:05:38 1998 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:57:54 -0600 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9812D" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:03:57 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. In-Reply-To: <199812181646.AA11582@nsl-too.pa.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" When you believe you accept someone else's authority in a matter. I suspect that most people on this list are unable on their own to prove either Darwin's theory or Einstein's or even Newton's for that matter. How many can list the subatomic particles and explain their relations? No, in most cases you've been taught in school that scientists can be reliably trusted to have stated the truth. In physics, chemistry and biology most people lack the knowledge to know for themselves that the ideas are true, they simply *believe* because society tells them to do so. There is a general consensus on this. In that case one *believes* not in evidence which one is capable of reproducing on one's own, instead you *believe* in scientific authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a theologian, a mystic etc. Britt-Inger Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Ph.D. Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:39:30 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] SV: [*FSFFU*] immortality again In-Reply-To: <6da488c5.367ab5cd@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >In a message dated 12/18/98 11:15:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, >boyle@ALGONET.SE writes: > ><< So, how do you prove that someone's consciuosness is extinguished >> > >Well, there is the problem of how consciousness arises. > >For instance, if you if you close an electrical switch current will flow >through a circuit, creating a strong enough magnetic field to deflect the >pointer on a compass. When you open the switch, current stops flowing, the >magnetic field ceases to exist, and the compass arrow goes back to normal. We >don't imagine that, when the current stops, the magnetic field goes on to a >higher level of existence. We pretty much figure it does what it looks like >it does: it stops. > >Consciousness and awareness are not generated out of nothing: they arise from >the interaction of mind and body: a wondrous and complex generator of >electromagnetic fields. When the mind and body aren't here any more, >consciousness...like the magnetic field...stops. There is nothing left to >generate it, nor to contain all the memories that make the personality what it >is. > >I certainly sympathize with the desire to go on forever, and/or to meet again >with our dead. And if believing such things makes you feel better...well, >along with Paracelsus, what can it hurt? > >But so often the idea of a 'life' after this one is braided in with ideas of >"higher plane", or "higher learning experience" or "heaven": Ideas that >suggest there is something better about death than life. And I think >sometimes that such ideas cheat us of the real wonder, value, and fragility of >this life and interfere with our focus on Life itself. I also wonder >sometimes if we might fight a lot harder for our present lives and the lives >of our loved ones if we couldn't think, oh, well, once I'm dead things will be >better, or, justice will be meeted out, or, I'll get another chance, or Jesus >will heal my hurts... > >Madrone Hmm, in that case the former Soviet Union can reliably be defined as the most non-religious and the most secularised country in the world since the authorities strived energetically to wipe out religion as part of the political profile. Also, solidarity for humanitarian reasons was proposed in the politica program. The net result convinces me at least that humans seem incapable to altruistic actions unless fired by religious assumptions.The end result in the Soviet Union would point to your supposition being wrong or at least debatable, since there is virtually no loyalty to anything, not to the country, not to compatriots, not to family. Children are abandoned in a higher rate than in poverty stricken nations like Brazil, people who are disabled in one way or another are totally marginalized. All aid comes from abroad, the few people who do have a reasonable economy only rarely contemplates sharing it with those who have less. All religions, all, prescribe stewardship and accountability as a foundation for human interaction. One of the first chapters of the Bible recounts the story of Cain and Abel. In brief (my translation from Swedish) this conversation takes part between God and Cain. God: Where is your brother Abel? Cain: I don't know, why should I care for my brother? God: What have you done? Listen, the blood of your brother calls to me from the earth. So be damned and expelled from the land who has opened its mouth to receieve the blood of of your brother taken by your hand. I defy anyone to find anything in that story that claims that our actions on this planet are unimportant or that what we do here is of no consequence. Rather the reverse, we are obliged to care for other humans. The same goes for the Gospel. Go to the source and it states unambiguously that when the Judgement takes place the following statement will be made to those who did not accept the care of their brother: *I was hungry, and you did not feed me, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was imprisoned and you did not visit me*. And the people will ask. *When Lord did we ever meet you hungry, naked or imprisoned?*. And the Lord will answer: *Whenever you met a person in that state. Now, go away and suffer for it.* No two ways about it. The same goes for islam, hinduism, and buddhism - the requirements are clear. No one gets to heaven by neglecting the responsibilites of this world. Britt-Inger Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Ph.D. Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:44:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <68269343.367ea982@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I do not fear death-it is a part of nature, a part of life and I see no reason to fear it. But then again I dont believe in a grim reaper or in an afterlife. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 12/20/98 11:34:40 AM Mountain Standard Time, > DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: > > >But...maybe we SHOULD fear death. > > -- very true. Death is (a) a loathsome horror, and (b) inevitable. It's > impossible not to fear death; denial does no good, and the genes are strong. > On the other hand, one should not let fear determine one's actions. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:54:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Actually I would have to disagree with you there. To me, as an atheist, it is a matter of faith or nonfaith as the case may be not a matter of evidence one way or another. Some say they believe because God spoke to them or even appeared to them, but doesnt mean they follow a religious authority figure--I dont follow anyone but myself TYVM. The schools I went to rarely brought up evolution, though I have read Charles Darwin on my own and found his theories fascinating and enlightening, but I dont see Darwin as some sort of figure that I must quote or follow like some religious fanatic or some scientific groupie! Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > When you believe you accept someone else's authority in a matter. I suspect > that most people on this list are unable on their own to prove either > Darwin's theory or Einstein's or even Newton's for that matter. How many > can list the subatomic particles and explain their relations? No, in most > cases you've been taught in school that scientists can be reliably trusted > to have stated the truth. In physics, chemistry and biology most people > lack the knowledge to know for themselves that the ideas are true, they > simply *believe* because society tells them to do so. There is a general > consensus on this. In that case one *believes* not in evidence which one is > capable of reproducing on one's own, instead you *believe* in scientific > authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a > religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a > theologian, a mystic etc. > > Britt-Inger > > Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se > Ph.D. > Dept. of Art History > Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 > 752 37 Uppsala > Uppsala University > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:22:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > When you believe you accept someone else's authority in a matter... > one *believes* not in evidence which one is > capable of reproducing on one's own, instead you *believe* in scientific > authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a > religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a > theologian, a mystic etc. > > Britt-Inger I'm not sure that this is entirely the case. The religious expert is claiming her/his knowledge on the basis of faith or a "revealed" holy text. The scientist is claiming her/his knowledge on the basis of the scientific method. You are choosing to believe in both cases, but what you're choosing to believe was arrived at in radically different ways. Also, although you may not have the ability to fully conduct the scientific experiments yourself, many of the fundamental scientific theories (evolution, conservation of energy, etc) are readily tested on a rough, seat of the pants level. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:42:26 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The educational system is not the only venue for scientism, you have massmedia, books etc also among other information channels which direct our thinking and our forming a world view. Mostly what we *believe* in all instances are a matter of trust since no one has the time actually to check everything on their own. We have to accept a lot, just because someone *says* so or else a life time wouldn't be enough to ascertain it. Discoveries happen all the time that forces us to reconsider. And like one of the Nobel prize winners this year put it: what if the present physics fit so well because our brain is wired to percieve the world in a specific way, that is the way we have explained it. What science does on a meta-level is to produce a world-view out of fragments. That which is outside our power of observation we can't explain because we can't percieve it, but that still doesn't mean it ain't there, it only is unobservable to us. For most of human existance we didn't know about germs or viruses, or electro-magnetism or.... We don't know yet what remains to be found. We have decided on the rules of the game, and those rules might be self-fulfilling, Our percception is limited. Newton's theories (he also dabbled in alchemy) worked very well until technology opened up a new universe to us and forced us to reconsider. The alchemists never succeeded in their efforts because they lacked the correct knowledge and the right methods, an alchemist shown how coal is made into industrial diamonds would claim it a victory for alchemy. Maybe one day even gold can be produced, who's to say? But we consider alchemy superstition today. There have been many natural phenomena that has been completely disregarded or declared as impossible already because they didn't fit the mould, because something hasn't been proved or disproved yet doesn't mean it's non-existent. There is nothing that says that Einstein is the last word. Science today simply de-selects that which doesn't fit within its limitations, and that covers a whole span of things from parapshychology to religion. Doesn't people read Kuhn anymore? Paradigm was an important concept when I began my academic career. Religion has it's own specialists, just like physics. Does anyone go to a plumber to find out what is wrong with the garden plot? I expect a phycisist to be able to answer questions on physics, but I don't consider a phycisist to be the person I would consult on existential issues since it is outside his/her area of competence, just as medicine, biology, chemistry, art, music or whatever would be unless the person has a double degree. I prefer to evaluate what the specialist in religion has to say before I make decisions on what to think in that area. Now I wish all happy holidays and peace to all the world, since my PC at home has a crashed hard drive so I can't check my email much during the vacation. Besides, I think we've begun to run in circles again on this particular OT, or?? And don't forget if it hadn't been for religion we wouldn't be taking time off now nor would we have work free Sundays... and as some psychologists would have it, if it hadn't been for the two Christian inventions called bad conscience and sin nor would we have ecological movements. (Horrible grammar, I know). Britt-Inger >Actually I would have to disagree with you there. To me, as an atheist, it >is a matter of faith or nonfaith as the case may be not a matter of >evidence one way or another. Some say they believe because God spoke to >them or even appeared to them, but doesnt mean they follow a religious >authority figure--I dont follow anyone but myself TYVM. The schools I went >to rarely brought up evolution, though I have read Charles Darwin on my >own and found his theories fascinating and enlightening, but I dont see >Darwin as some sort of figure that I must quote or follow like some >religious fanatic or some scientific groupie! > >Bertina >bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu > >On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > >> When you believe you accept someone else's authority in a matter. I suspect >> that most people on this list are unable on their own to prove either >> Darwin's theory or Einstein's or even Newton's for that matter. How many >> can list the subatomic particles and explain their relations? No, in most >> cases you've been taught in school that scientists can be reliably trusted >> to have stated the truth. In physics, chemistry and biology most people >> lack the knowledge to know for themselves that the ideas are true, they >> simply *believe* because society tells them to do so. There is a general >> consensus on this. In that case one *believes* not in evidence which one is >> capable of reproducing on one's own, instead you *believe* in scientific >> authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a >> religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a >> theologian, a mystic etc. >> >> Britt-Inger >> >> Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se >> Ph.D. >> Dept. of Art History >> Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 >> 752 37 Uppsala >> Uppsala University >> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:39:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortality again Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for being off topic (I could send out some Crusade gossip to even things up). The IWW has been going through a growth spurt of late, so you'll be hearing more from us. Given that capitalism operates on a global scale, it's important that workers do the same. Yeah, I often wonder what life would be like if the IWW hadn't been brutally surpressed in the United States during the 20s and 30s. IF you aren't familiar with labor history, most IWW members "Wobblies" back then were thrown in jail and IWW offices were destroyed. The capitalists were so scared of the growing power of the IWW and other unions that they tried everything (successfully) to destroy unionism in the U.S. Chuck0 IWW - the folks that brought you the weekend ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortality again Author: "Demetria M. Shew" at Internet Date: 12/21/98 3:03 PM In a message dated 12/21/98 9:10:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG writes: << The IWW is the INDUSTRIAL Workers of the World. >> I talked to a member of the inland boatmans union awhile back, and he told me two interesting things: the first was that after the Wobblies it became illegal to do international unions (?) and the second is that international unions are coming back anyway. I keep thinking how different things would be if the IWW had had more success. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:41:07 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: IWW ( was immortality again) very OT In-Reply-To: <000651BF.1205@aaas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thought it time to rename the subject title. The US might have had a development similar to the Scandinavian countries where the unions are still an important political factor. And the income gaps are smaller and the number of marginalized people fewer, but since uncontrolled capitalism is being forced on us also politically by the multinationals (the so-called market) the difference between various classes in society have increased in an unpleasant way. Unfortunately the union idea also requires a certain amount of altruism, and with better conditions the workers themselves tend to disregard the importance of sticking together because they believe that they can cut a bigger piece of the joint on their own if they don't need to share it with the others. Still, the idea of soldarity prevails even if it has been threatened which was amply demonstrated by last years election. Britt-Inger >Sorry for being off topic (I could send out some Crusade gossip to even >things up). The IWW has been going through a growth spurt of late, so >you'll be hearing more from us. Given that capitalism operates on a global >scale, it's important that workers do the same. > >Yeah, I often wonder what life would be like if the IWW hadn't been >brutally surpressed in the United States during the 20s and 30s. IF you >aren't familiar with labor history, most IWW members "Wobblies" back then >were thrown in jail and IWW offices were destroyed. The capitalists were so >scared of the growing power of the IWW and other unions that they tried >everything (successfully) to destroy unionism in the U.S. > >Chuck0 >IWW - the folks that brought you the weekend > > > >______________________________ Reply Separator >_________________________________ >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortality again >Author: "Demetria M. Shew" at Internet >Date: 12/21/98 3:03 PM > > >In a message dated 12/21/98 9:10:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG >writes: > ><< The IWW is the INDUSTRIAL Workers of the World. >> >I talked to a member of the inland boatmans union awhile back, and he told me >two interesting things: the first was that after the Wobblies it became >illegal to do international unions (?) and the second is that international >unions are coming back anyway. > >I keep thinking how different things would be if the IWW had had more success. > >Madrone Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Ph.D. Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:18:52 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tara Tieso Subject: The proof and nothing but the proof Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >Believing something means holding it for true without having proof. If you have proof, you do not believe, you know.< This feels like a slippery slope. . . What exactly is "proof"? Did not most of the old world "know" the earth was not spherical? Didn't the designers of the Cray computer "know" they had created the most efficient data processing machine? Didn't NASA "know" they were sending up a completely safety-checked Challenger? Could not many of us say we "knew" people who were significant to us; trusted, loved companions who we perhaps no longer speak to? Hmm. . . tara Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:27:37 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 3:04:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, Britt- Inger.Johansson@KONSTVET.UU.SE writes: << instead you *believe* in scientific authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a theologian, a mystic etc. >> -- horse dung. The mystic cannot show reproduceable results. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:31:35 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 6:45:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: >I do not fear death-it is a part of nature, a part of life and I see no reason to fear it. >> -- if your car starts to swerve towards a cliff, or somone points a loaded gun at you, you don't feel fear? Your heartbeat doesn't accelerate, your palms don't get moist, your perception of time doesn't slow down? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:35:24 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 8:43:28 AM Mountain Standard Time, Britt- Inger.Johansson@KONSTVET.UU.SE writes: << There is nothing that says that Einstein is the last word. -- nobody, including Einstein, said that he _was_ the last word. In science, there are no last words. >Science today simply de-selects that which doesn't fit within its limitations >> -- flatly untrue. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:42:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: IWW ( was immortality again) very OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 9:42:10 AM Mountain Standard Time, Britt- Inger.Johansson@KONSTVET.UU.SE writes: >but since uncontrolled capitalism is being forced on us also politically by the multinationals> -- on the contrary. Sweden can have any policy it wants. Of course, if it isn't the policy they like, the companies will pick up their toys and go somewhere else, along with most of the high-income people (last I looked, there were about 120,000 Danes in London and none of them were poor). You pays your money and takes your choice, as the saying goes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:29:16 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 7:43:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG writes: << The IWW has been going through a growth spurt of late, so you'll be hearing more from us. >> You mean...the wobblies are still out there??????????? How do I find out more? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:34:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: immortality, science, religion... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hate to be the one to point this out, but this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with either science fiction or feminism, let alone both. For those not familiar with the list guidelines, please read them over at http://www.exo.net/~lauraq/femsf/listserv/welcome.txt. For those interested in debating the merits of religion versus science, the concept of belief, etc. there are many other mailing lists and Usenet groups available. This is not the right place for such discussions (unless they are explicitly tied to Feminist SF). -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Tori Amos -- From the Choirgirl Hotel "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:48:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortali Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit They are all over the place. Which city do you live in? Otherwise, check out their website at: www.iww.org Some famous current Wobblies include Noam Chomsky and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Chuck0 Ground Zero GMB Washington, DC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] immortality Author: "Demetria M. Shew" at Internet Date: 12/22/98 1:29 PM In a message dated 12/22/98 7:43:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG writes: << The IWW has been going through a growth spurt of late, so you'll be hearing more from us. >> You mean...the wobblies are still out there??????????? How do I find out more? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:16:22 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 5:36:32 PM, you wrote: <<<< There is nothing that says that Einstein is the last word. -- nobody, including Einstein, said that he _was_ the last word. In science, there are no last words.>> On another list we've been discussing the fact that even Einstein is being taught, well -- wrong. He found a spin in his calculations. Should be E=MC2+P2... aha! so there. (Hope I remember that correctly, but you get my meaning) Did someone mention Science Fiction and Fantasy? Oh, yes, that's right -- Belief systems and Science... (inversion intended) And FEMINIST SFF??? Ah yes, that's when, with carefully constructed mirrors, he get to see behind everything and there is the Great Mother cutting her toenails and laughing uproariously. A happy season to all! lightly, lightly phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:07:59 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/22/98 12:39:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG writes: << They are all over the place. >> Wheeee! I'll look 'em up. Noam Chomsky...what a kick. Thanks Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 20:33:54 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: OT, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two comments, just for the heck of it: 1. If your belief is defensible, rational debate won't hurt it. If it isn't defensible, you can certainly espouse it, but it's easier on your nervous system if you can laugh about it, too. (I should know.) 2. If others want to discuss feminist SF and/or The Sparrow, where are their posts? I say, as long as OT isn't detracting, go for it. If someone wants to discuss something on topic, bring it on. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:31:22 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU* OT's and Sparrow In-Reply-To: <367FE61C.462B4675@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I hate to be the one to point this out, but this discussion has >absolutely nothing to do with either science fiction or feminism, let >alone both. For those not familiar with the list guidelines, please read >them over at http://www.exo.net/~lauraq/femsf/listserv/welcome.txt. For >those interested in debating the merits of religion versus science, the >concept of belief, etc. there are many other mailing lists and Usenet >groups available. This is not the right place for such discussions >(unless they are explicitly tied to Feminist SF). > >-- >Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT >http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm >Listening to: Tori Amos -- From the Choirgirl Hotel >"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin Hmm, I stand corrected. I should have assisted in steering it back to literature. Sorry, abject apology. Done it again (it's sometimes very difficult not to respond when you care for a subject). Fantasy do deal a lot with religion so getting everything back on track shouldn't be a major problem. The fight between good and evil is usually a prime theme in most fantasy, and that idea definitely has it's root in religion. These OT's were furthermore very much sparked by the Sparrow. Let's return to the fold. I had intended to return to the Sparrow anyway, since I enjoyed the contributions very much and found much food for thought there. Unfortunately though, my hard drive at home crashed definitely last week, it has gone to see it's maker (literally meaning the local Compaq repair center) and will probably have to be formatted so I've lost all the postings on the subject, sigh, and can't respond to them anymore. If anyone has saved the discussions I would be delighted to recieve copies privately directly to my email address so I can print them out from my office computer. As of now I will have to go off cyberspace since my only email access will be at my office - which is closed from this afternoon for the duration of the holidays (until Jan 7th). Have a nice holiday Britt-Inger Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Ph.D. Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:30:03 +0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili" Organization: KSU Subject: Re: OT, etc. Comments: To: camiller@gte.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cathie Miller wrote: > Two comments, just for the heck of it: > > 1. If your belief is defensible, rational debate won't hurt it. If it > isn't defensible, you can certainly espouse it, but it's easier on your > nervous system if you can laugh about it, too. (I should know.) > > 2. If others want to discuss feminist SF and/or The Sparrow, where are > their posts? I say, as long as OT isn't detracting, go for it. If > someone wants to discuss something on topic, bring it on. > > Chris Yes; I would like to pose the following question (and you have to excuse my ignorance): Why is it only feminists who are looking for Utopian dimensions? I have reseached a sizable amount of feminist discourse, and found that the larger portion tends towards utopia (this tendency is not limited to fantasies and so called "literary" works; it is also present in critical and theoretical work). Does any one have a take on this? Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:46:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Just the facts, ma'am. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII And your point? I dont know "we", I only go by my own experience. "just because someone else" --I think that was MY point. Er, dont think I mentioned Einstein. Of course discoveries happen all the time, thats the point--you can rest assured the theory of christianity has long been disputed by many differing factors. There are many nonreligious people who profess in a psychokinetic phenomenon that I dont subscribe to. Big whoop. The universe is large enough for differing opinions. It will still expand no matter who or what believes in it. Or how it is celebrated or not. Er, psychologists and ecological movements? Wont touch that one with a ten foot pole. Happy Holidays from a professed skeptic, Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > The educational system is not the only venue for scientism, you have > massmedia, books etc also among other information channels which direct our > instances are a matter of trust since no one has the time actually to check > everything on their own. We have to accept a lot, just because someone > *says* so or else a life time wouldn't be enough to ascertain it. > > Discoveries happen all the time that forces us to reconsider. And like one > of the Nobel prize winners this year put it: what if the present physics > fit so well because our brain is wired to percieve the world in a specific > way, that is the way we have explained it. What science does on a > meta-level is to produce a world-view out of fragments. That which is > outside our power of observation we can't explain because we can't percieve > it, but that still doesn't mean it ain't there, it only is unobservable to > us. For most of human existance we didn't know about germs or viruses, or > electro-magnetism or.... We don't know yet what remains to be found. > > We have decided on the rules of the game, and those rules might be > self-fulfilling, Our percception is limited. Newton's theories (he also > dabbled in alchemy) worked very well until technology opened up a new > universe to us and forced us to reconsider. The alchemists never succeeded > in their efforts because they lacked the correct knowledge and the right > methods, an alchemist shown how coal is made into industrial diamonds would > claim it a victory for alchemy. Maybe one day even gold can be produced, > who's to say? But we consider alchemy superstition today. There have been > many natural phenomena that has been completely disregarded or declared as > impossible already because they didn't fit the mould, because something > hasn't been proved or disproved yet doesn't mean it's non-existent. > > There is nothing that says that Einstein is the last word. Science today > simply de-selects that which doesn't fit within its limitations, and that > covers a whole span of things from parapshychology to religion. Doesn't > people read Kuhn anymore? Paradigm was an important concept when I began my > academic career. > > Religion has it's own specialists, just like physics. Does anyone go to a > plumber to find out what is wrong with the garden plot? I expect a > phycisist to be able to answer questions on physics, but I don't consider a > phycisist to be the person I would consult on existential issues since it > is outside his/her area of competence, just as medicine, biology, > chemistry, art, music or whatever would be unless the person has a double > degree. I prefer to evaluate what the specialist in religion has to say > before I make decisions on what to think in that area. > > Now I wish all happy holidays and peace to all the world, since my PC at > home has a crashed hard drive so I can't check my email much during the > vacation. Besides, I think we've begun to run in circles again on this > particular OT, or?? And don't forget if it hadn't been for religion we > wouldn't be taking time off now nor would we have work free Sundays... and > as some psychologists would have it, if it hadn't been for the two > Christian inventions called bad conscience and sin nor would we have > ecological movements. (Horrible grammar, I know). > > Britt-Inger > > > >Actually I would have to disagree with you there. To me, as an atheist, it > >is a matter of faith or nonfaith as the case may be not a matter of > >evidence one way or another. Some say they believe because God spoke to > >them or even appeared to them, but doesnt mean they follow a religious > >authority figure--I dont follow anyone but myself TYVM. The schools I went > >to rarely brought up evolution, though I have read Charles Darwin on my > >own and found his theories fascinating and enlightening, but I dont see > >Darwin as some sort of figure that I must quote or follow like some > >religious fanatic or some scientific groupie! > > > >Bertina > >bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu > > > >On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > > > >> When you believe you accept someone else's authority in a matter. I suspect > >> that most people on this list are unable on their own to prove either > >> Darwin's theory or Einstein's or even Newton's for that matter. How many > >> can list the subatomic particles and explain their relations? No, in most > >> cases you've been taught in school that scientists can be reliably trusted > >> to have stated the truth. In physics, chemistry and biology most people > >> lack the knowledge to know for themselves that the ideas are true, they > >> simply *believe* because society tells them to do so. There is a general > >> consensus on this. In that case one *believes* not in evidence which one is > >> capable of reproducing on one's own, instead you *believe* in scientific > >> authorities (culturally pre-programmed) in precisely the same way as a > >> religious person would *believe* in the testimony of a religious expert, a > >> theologian, a mystic etc. > >> > >> Britt-Inger > >> > >> Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se > >> Ph.D. > >> Dept. of Art History > >> Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 > >> 752 37 Uppsala > >> Uppsala University > >> > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:49:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <221d342.367fd777@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, I fear pain at those points, not death. Or maybe I fear leaving a stink in my pants.*evil grin* Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 12/22/98 6:45:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, > bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: > > >I do not fear death-it is a part of nature, a part of life and I see no > reason to fear it. >> > > -- if your car starts to swerve towards a cliff, or somone points a loaded gun > at you, you don't feel fear? Your heartbeat doesn't accelerate, your palms > don't get moist, your perception of time doesn't slow down? > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:32:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: OT, etc. In-Reply-To: <3680E24A.86A129AA@ksu.edu.sa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili wrote: > Yes; I would like to pose the following question (and you have to excuse > my ignorance): > Why is it only feminists who are looking for Utopian dimensions? It's not. We've just done a lot of it in the past 30-40 years. I have > reseached a sizable amount of feminist discourse, and found that the larger > portion tends towards utopia (this tendency is not limited to fantasies and > so called "literary" works; it is also present in critical and theoretical > work). Does any one have a take on this? Yes. If you're not happy with the society you're living in, you tend to write ones you like better, and even methods of getting from here to there. (such as ECOTOPIA EMERGING). Feminists have had lots of reasons to be unhappy. And we have no homeland on Earth (Africa, Israel) on which to project our daydreams and misery, so we invent The Wanderground, Herland,etc.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:32:44 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: OT, etc. In-Reply-To: <3680649C.62B0@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT We have this discussion *way* too often, so it seems pretty evident that for some people, the second week of extensive OT postings does distract. It would just be really really nice if the folks who go there would take it upon themselves to take it offlist, then we wouldn't have this monthly interaction. The point is courtesy, and by day more0than-three, an OT topic should run its course or move offlist. By day more-than-seven, its absurd for folks to get offended by being asked to take it to a more appropriate venue. So folks aren't talking about the Sparrow, that doesn't turn the list into a free for all. Once I finish the grading I'm up to my eyeballs in, I have a lot to say about it. Until then, I'll keep hitting the old delete button and wait for the return of courtesy. Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:01:26 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: OT, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What makes you think so? Some people are curious > about what might have been if a different > turning had been chosen at the crossroad. > Perhaps some women are slightly more prepared to > wonder at what others take for granted. marie > > Why is it only feminists who are looking for > Utopian dimensions? > > It's not. We've just done a lot of it in > the past 30-40 years. > > I have > > reseached a sizable amount of feminist > discourse, and found that the larger > > portion tends towards utopia (this tendency is > not limited to fantasies and > > so called "literary" works; it is also present > in critical and theoretical > > work). Does any one have a take on this? > > Yes. If you're not happy with the > society you're living in, you > tend to write ones you like better, and even > methods of getting from here > to there. (such as ECOTOPIA EMERGING). Feminists > have had lots of reasons > to be unhappy. And we have no homeland on Earth > (Africa, Israel) on > which to project our daydreams and misery, so we > invent The > Wanderground, Herland,etc.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 20:18:17 +0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili" Organization: KSU Subject: Re: OT, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili wrote: > > > Yes; I would like to pose the following question (and you have to excuse > > my ignorance): > > Why is it only feminists who are looking for Utopian dimensions? > > It's not. We've just done a lot of it in the past 30-40 years. > Yes. If you're not happy with the society you're living in, you > tend to write ones you like better, and even methods of getting from here > to there. (such as ECOTOPIA EMERGING). Feminists have had lots of reasons > to be unhappy. And we have no homeland on Earth (Africa, Israel) on > which to project our daydreams and misery, so we invent The > Wanderground, Herland,etc.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu I understand the desire behind seeking a better place; but I am afraid Utopia is as oppressive as the society or land from which is fleeing. Feminists have all the "rights" to be unhappy about their past and present conditions, but utopia does not seem to be the solution. It is probably one more ruse to keep feminists under control and "tolerant," these are the appropriate words.Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:11:08 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: OT postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy stated: > > We have this discussion *way* too often, so it seems pretty > evident that for some people, the second week of extensive OT > postings does distract. It would just be really really nice if the folks > who go there would take it upon themselves to take it offlist, then > we wouldn't have this monthly interaction. The point is courtesy, > and by day more0than-three, an OT topic should run its course or > move offlist. By day more-than-seven, its absurd for folks to get > offended by being asked to take it to a more appropriate venue. > > So folks aren't talking about the Sparrow, that doesn't turn the list > into a free for all. Once I finish the grading I'm up to my eyeballs > in, I have a lot to say about it. Until then, I'll keep hitting the old > delete button and wait for the return of courtesy. I don't see this thread as a free-for-all, but your point is taken. I for one will try to determine what is OT and what isn't, and in future, avoid the OT. Chris p.s. ftr, I wasn't offended. I just didn't see much else being discussed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 16:52:45 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) In-Reply-To: <368125D9.1A783FBA@ksu.edu.sa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 23 Dec 98, , Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili wrote: > I understand the desire behind seeking a better place; but I am afraid > Utopia is as oppressive as the society or land from which is fleeing. > Feminists have all the "rights" to be unhappy about their past and present > conditions, but utopia does not seem to be the solution. It is probably > one more ruse to keep feminists under control and "tolerant," these are > the appropriate words.Maijan The Dispossessed is a great place to start thinking about this stuff. It's subtitle (an ambiguous utopia) lays bare what has resulted in a redefinition of Utopian writing, where the new utopia involves choices and freedom and an absence of rigidity. On some days, I think this is what Tepper was getting at with _Gate_. I certainly think Suzy Charnas' fourth Alldera book will grapple with this. Starhawk's _Fifth Sacred Thing_ is a model of flexibility against rigidity. More and more, feminist utopias are also explicitly set against dystopian culture, see _Gate_ _5th..._ _Walk to the end of the world_, _Woman at the edge of time_, _The Kin of Ata_, even _Wanderground_ just for starters. The Augustinian utopian model appears to have been thrown over for a more comparative, flexible idea of 'what life should be like' -- a move that, btw, fits the feminine gender stereotype pretty darn well...and that's ok with me. Less authoritarian, but unfortuantely still grappling withe my favorite problem 'we'll tolerate no intolerance here'. Guess I did learn something teaching that class! Hope everyone enjoys their Winter Sun holiday! Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:08:38 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: OT: Star Trek Announcement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT After all that, here I come...tonight's Sci Fi channel Star Trek ep is Turnabout Intruder ... the one where we find out how Gene Roddenberry *really* felt about women in the captain's chair... Enjoy! Rudy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:24:49 +0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili" Organization: KSU Subject: Re: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Comments: To: releon@syr.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Correction: In my last post I wrote "these are the appropriate words." This should read "if these are the appropriate words." I am sure people could guess; but I wanted to clarify the matter. It looked awful when I read in the response of Rudy Leon. Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 21:12:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John & Jessica Connor Subject: Re: immortality again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01BE2EB8.E4151680" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BE2EB8.E4151680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In response to Shew's following: (But...maybe we SHOULD fear death. Maybe we should pour it down our = spines and freeze it with terror so we will have the backbone to stand up for Life. Maybe we should file our teeth and sharpen our fingernails and fight anyone...absolutely anyone, including fathers and lovers...anyone who = acts against life, whether that is bombing Iraq or work first or leaking = over- crowded classrooms or pesticides in our food or telling us not to cry = because it will be better in the sweet by-and-by. Maybe we should be like the bear, with our back up against death and our = hair wild and eyes flaming and jaws dripping bite-anticipatory saliva in = protection of our cubs, in protection of life present and life to come. Madrone, afraid of death and proud of it.) I really don't think we should fear death at all. I completely agree = with your passionate embracing of life, but (and I guess this all = depends on our own brand of spirituality) can't we embrace death as well = and the change that goes along with it? Octavia Butler deals with this = theme constantly in her books. Taken from that perspective, doesn't a = fear of death really all come down to a fear of Change and Chaos? Just = some thoughts... But I love your seize-the-day mentality when it comes = to life. Happy Holidays... ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BE2EB8.E4151680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In response to Shew's = following:
 
 (But...maybe we SHOULD fear = death. =20 Maybe we should pour it down our spines and
freeze it with terror so = we will=20 have the backbone to stand up for Life.
Maybe we should file our = teeth and=20 sharpen our fingernails and fight
anyone...absolutely anyone, = including=20 fathers and lovers...anyone who acts
against life, whether that is = bombing=20 Iraq or work first or leaking over-
crowded classrooms or pesticides = in our=20 food or telling us not to cry because
it will be better in the sweet=20 by-and-by.

Maybe we should be like the bear, with our back up = against=20 death and our hair
wild and eyes flaming and jaws dripping = bite-anticipatory=20 saliva in protection
of our cubs, in protection of life present and = life to=20 come.

Madrone, afraid of death and proud of it.)
 
I really don't think we should fear = death at=20 all.  I completely agree with your passionate embracing of life, = but (and I=20 guess this all depends on our own brand of spirituality) can't we = embrace death=20 as well and the change that goes along with it?  Octavia Butler = deals with=20 this theme constantly in her books.  Taken from that perspective, = doesn't a=20 fear of death really all come down to a fear of Change and Chaos?  = Just=20 some thoughts...  But I love your seize-the-day mentality when it = comes to=20 life.
 
Happy = Holidays...
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BE2EB8.E4151680-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 02:09:16 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu > Yes. If you're not happy with the society you're living in, you > tend to write ones you like better, and even methods of getting from here > to there. (such as ECOTOPIA EMERGING). Feminists have had lots of reasons > to be unhappy. And we have no homeland on Earth (Africa, Israel) on > which to project our daydreams and misery, so we invent The > Wanderground, Herland,etc. This makes sense to me. But here is a question I've always had. Why do feminist utopias often exclude men, or separate men from women? This is not a criticism, but rather puzzlement on my part. For myself, I wouldn't want to live in a world without men, or with rigid separation. But I would like to live in an egalitarian world where all people are treated with respect, tolerance, and equity. A study some years ago discovered that when young women and men are mixed together in co-ed dorms, they treat one another with more respect than when they are in sex-segregated dorms. It seems to me that this underlies a basic aspect of human nature: the more we separate, the more we tend to see those different from us as the "other," rather than as our friends, colleagues, or peers. The argument I've heard for all-women utopias is that women discover they can depend on themselves, rather than on men. But it seems to me this is an integral part of an egalitarian society, that is, women are fully capable of achieving independence and equality in a culture with both men and women. Why should it be necessary to take away the men? Doesn't this suggest women are less independent by nature than men, and so have to be on their own to achieve independence, whereas men can do it in a mixed culture? Isn't that exactly one of the stereotypes we would like to counter? It's true that we're dealing with a tilted playing field, and one way to level that surface is to create an environment where the inequity can't exist. But part of gaining equality, I would think, is wrapped up in our attempts to level that field. How can we do that if we walk away from it? To me, a great deal of the richness of life comes from the diversity of people in the world. Part of my outlook on this comes from the fact that I've had to learn to cope with the opposite situation, that is, as a female physicist, I am often very much in the minority, if not the only woman in the local work environment. There are often times when I grit my teeth and wish for a level field. I have felt frustration knowing that in my lifetime, assuming human life spans remain as they are now, I probably won't see equality in the field of physics. But it is also a great builder of confidence to know that I =have= been able to succeed in that environment, despite underacknowledged obstacles, that I've been able to provide a role model and just plain proof that the stereotypes were wrong. Maybe it has helped level that playing field just a bit. I've also developed many professional contacts and friends in the world of science, people I value. In most cases, the fact that most physicists are men doesn't make a difference; we all share a similar appreciation of science and math. I've noticed too that the phenomenon of the "other" being suspect also applies to scientists and mathematicians, that is, many biases exist about us. I've been stunned by the harsh things that have been said to me elsewhere by people who aren't comfortable with science or math and so make assumptions about my character without knowing me at all, based on their general opinions of people in those fields. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 10:55:00 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: kelly boyle Subject: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Comments: To: asaro@sff.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It's true that we're dealing with a tilted playing field, and one way to > level that surface is to create an environment where the inequity can't > exist. But part of gaining equality, I would think, is wrapped up in > our attempts to level that field. How can we do that if we walk away > from it? To me, a great deal of the richness of life comes from the > diversity of people in the world. > I think that part of the desire to create man-free environments comes from this awareness. Myself, I work in an environment where men are the minority, but where they are still allowed to dominate the discourse and where the most unintelligent statement, if made by a man, will be treated with great respect. The utopia of no men does not appeal to me, either, and I do agree that it has credibility problems - if you are free only so long as there are no men, how is this freedom going to survive when people with y chromosomes are introduced into it? Still, I think the pervasiveness of this kind of utopia - not only in Herland or Motherlines, but also the limited utopia of Bradley's Guildhouses - speaks of a desire to see what it would be like to be a woman in an environment where you do not have to interact with men. Maybe it is also hard to imagine the kind of male gender role that would be possible to include in this utopia? Kristina Hildebrand ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:40:17 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: feminist utopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kristina stated: > I work in an environment where men are the > minority, but where they are still allowed to dominate the discourse and > where the most unintelligent statement, if made by a man, will be treated > with great respect. This is true where I work, as well. And I think most women are afraid not to challenge and/or not to tolerate men's ignorance or bad behavior because we don't want men to think badly of us. Feminist or not, most of my female coworkers and friends want men to think well of them (as it's human nature for us to want most everyone to think well of us), which is obvious by how men's insensitive remarks and demeaning attitudes are ignored or accepted as 'well, they're men, they're supposed to act like that'. This comes, of course, from centuries of finding that the punishment for not finding men to be wise in all things could very well be torture or death. Feminist utopias, it seems to me, arose after a period of trying to achieve a certain equality with men, and realizing that the 'problem' may also lie within us women. Perhaps out of a sense that if we are apart from men, we won't have to deal with them or with our ambivalence toward them, separatist utopias were born. This is just a hunch. At the end of a frustrating attempt at a cure, we usually just amputate. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:28:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Speaking of religion and SF... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anyone else (besides Mike?) read Octavia Butler's PARABLE OF THE TALENTS yet? It's the rest of Lauren Olimina's life, and definitely deals with not only the concept of introducing a new religion (in the face of occasionally appalling opposition) but also a kind of immortality, when at the end of Lauren's life (not really a spoiler, we know she dies in the first few pages of the book...) Earthseed has a continuing existance of its own. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:38:53 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: The role of the BDG Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 23 Dec 98, at 10:32, Rudy Leon wrote: > So folks aren't talking about the Sparrow, that doesn't > turn the list into a free for all. Once I finish the > grading I'm up to my eyeballs in, I have a lot to say > about it. Until then, I'll keep hitting the old > delete button and wait for the return of courtesy. The preamble on the BDG webpage states "[t]he book discussion group's objective is to focus ...on a particular book ... to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSFFU list..." and elsewhere that "[r]emember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion". It's clear from these and other remarks on Laura's website that the BDG's purpose is to stimulate discussion by providing an _additional_, focused topic. It seems to me, however, that far from encouraging participation, the BDG has in fact been stifling it because people who wish to discuss books other than the current selection are sharply discouraged from doing so (vide Rudy's link between "courtesy" and restricting discussion to the BDG book). Since almost all the past, current and future BDG choices are at best "heavy" reading, this means - as I see it - that people interested in the lighter, fun side of feminist sf/f are excluded from meaningful participation. Is it not time to debate the role of the BDG in the group as a whole? >From Jerusalem, I'd like to wish everyone and their "families" happy holidays and a prosperous New Year. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _____________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:35:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/24/98 1:55:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, boyle@ALGONET.SE writes: << Maybe it is also hard to imagine the kind of male gender role that would be possible to include in this utopia? >> You know...this is what I feel is limiting us. To me, making a level playing field means helping all of us to be more human. But I'm not sure we can handle a definition of masculinity that moves men towards the same behaviors usually associated with women. Instead of seeing it as letting men be more human, it gets interpreted as making men effeminate. Dead stop. madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 16:35:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: Parable of the Talents. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > Anyone else (besides Mike?) read Octavia Butler's PARABLE OF THE TALENTS > yet? Yes, I just finished it and found it deeply dissapointing, possibly the weakest Octavia Butler novel I have read. I am using _Parable of The Sower_ in my PhD dissertation, discussing how Feminist Sf can deal with ethical and theological issues. I thought _Sower_ was intriguing because of the fledgling religion that it's main character, Lauren Olamina, begins to develop. The core of her religious philosophy is that "God is Change" and she begins to talk about her ideas with others, forming what she calls "Earthseed". The context of this religious development is complete social and personal upheaval, and it seems to me that the appeal of Lauren's religious philosophy is possibly much less of a draw to others than the safety of traveling with others in life-threatening circumstances. I didn't particularly like the end of _Sower_, but it raised some interesting challenges set in what seemed to be possibly real circumstances, i.e, how to create options to living in walled communities or to living as a theif and murderer. Possible spoiler... I thought that _Parable of the Talents_ would develop (Lauren) Olamina's religion, but it failed to do much more than repeat her writings from _Sower_ and place them in the context of a community whose actual workings are only vaguely described. Butler seems to want some sort of shared leadership expressed, but it seems weak and contrived. It is obvious that Olamina remains the leader of her community and I was not convinced that most of Acorn's members were there out of any commitment to Earthseed, but rather because the community provided safety and good relationships in an otherwise extremely volatile society. The critique of Olamina that develops through her daughter's writing is not really based on her religious thoughts (which remain painfully undeveloped), but rather on her failings as a leader and on Larkin/Ashe's unsubstantiated feelings of disappointment and jealousy that Earthseed was Olamina's preferred child. The fact that Ashe seemed to resent Olamina for not being able to find her after she was abducted as a newborn, but loved and cared for Marcos, the one who prevented Olamina from finding her child, is sickening. I say the book was deeply dissapointing primarily because it did so little to develop Olamina's actual philosophy. Each time the insistence that the "Destiny" was for Earthseed to inabit the stars, I felt more and more frustrated with this empty goal. What little there was of Earthseed that seemed interesting was turned into a missionary project with the goal of colonizing space, but which had no specific ideas about what kind of life this would be. Even the value of community was dropped after Acorn seemed to be too vulnerable as a means for pereptuating Olamina's beliefs. I'll start with that, though there's plenty more to say. What do you think? Susan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 16:49:36 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: The role of the BDG/what are folks reading? In-Reply-To: <802566E4.0066474C.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Let me say right off that I am in favor of looking over the BDG and seeing if it has encouraged or limited discussion. I had, and expressed, concerns about this when we were debating its creation, so this is a seconding of Mike's suggestion. I do want to clarify what I meant in the bit Mike quotes from me, however. My reference to a free-for-all was directly related to Chris' implication that since we weren't engaging in discussion of The Sparrow, the OT discussion of immortality/science/death was an acceptable replacement; or rather that if we weren't doing the one, it was OK to talk about whatever was on our minds, on topic or off (my understanding of what she said, not trying to put words into Chris' mouth). It wasn't at all meant to imply that talking about things other than The Sparrow, or the BDG book of the moment was a free for all. free-for-all equalled second week of immortality discussion,and was an attempt on my part to prevent our third monthly topicality discussion.... Back to BDG and Mike's question: Have people felt constrained by the BDG? I know that I have sent personal emails to folks who seemed to feel that the list was solely for the BDG, but those were only to one of two people who expressed that they felt that way, and doesn't even begin to encompass the list as a whole. Maybe something interesting to do would be to have people post what they are currently reading (FSFFU -ish) or what the top couple of books in their must-get-to-soon pile are... This way we can all get an idea of how many of us are on the list and the wide variety of stuff we are all reading and can talk about with each other. I'll start: The two books I am deciding between starting right this very *now* are Butler's _Parable of the Sower_ and the paperback re-release of Heglund's _Into the Forest_. I have been halfway through Louise Erdrich's _Tracks_ since thanksgiving, and a case could be made for a fantastic quality to the work.... am looking for something uplifting because I just finished Marge Piercy's _Small Changes_ and am depressed about the chances radical feminism has to take root enough to effect long term changes. How about everyone else? On 24 Dec 98, , Mike Stanton wrote: > On 23 Dec 98, at 10:32, Rudy Leon wrote: > > > So folks aren't talking about the Sparrow, that doesn't > > turn the list into a free for all. Once I finish the > > grading I'm up to my eyeballs in, I have a lot to say > > about it. Until then, I'll keep hitting the old > > delete button and wait for the return of courtesy. > > The preamble on the BDG webpage states "[t]he book discussion group's > objective is to focus ...on a particular book ... to get as many people > participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change > the nature of the FSFFU list..." and elsewhere that "[r]emember, the > group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion". > > It's clear from these and other remarks on Laura's website that the BDG's > purpose is to stimulate discussion by providing an _additional_, focused > topic. > > It seems to me, however, that far from encouraging participation, the BDG > has in fact been stifling it because people who wish to discuss books > other than the current selection are sharply discouraged from doing so > (vide Rudy's link between "courtesy" and restricting discussion to the BDG > book). Since almost all the past, current and future BDG choices are at > best "heavy" reading, this means - as I see it - that people interested in > the lighter, fun side of feminist sf/f are excluded from meaningful > participation. > > Is it not time to debate the role of the BDG in the group as a whole? > > >From Jerusalem, I'd like to wish everyone and their "families" happy > holidays and a prosperous New Year. > > > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) > _____________________________________________ > Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:31:34 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: OT postings and the BDG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I doubt that any of the people on this list would likely bring up a topic which could be considered so distracting and ludicrous as to crowd out discussion of a reading selection. The only OT posting which really bothers me is the bickering of people who have strongly held divergent beliefs and continue to argue with one another over minute points, when it is obviously futile. Otherwise, I've gotten a lot out of the discussions on Bosnia and SM and immortality. I think the ideas and imput from others who are interested in feminist lit. are valuable and potentially enlightening. If nothing else, I learn that there are real people out there who don't see things the way I do (which, of course, is amazing to me). But continual bickering can be tiresome and frustrating. Perhaps what spurs someone to ask others to, 'please, shut up', is when a discourse gets to the bickering stage? I don't know, but it's possible that this is the rub. Currently, I'm reading The Gate To Women's Country, which I would not have read, if not for the discussion on this group (and it was NOT the reading selection at the time), and next on my list is LOTR, because of this group (also not the reading selection at the time) unless I decide to start Parable of the Sower because LOTR is dauntingly big. I've saved some of the posts on TGTWC, but if I have other questions, I'm hoping I can return to that topic. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:47:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: reading what?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/24/98 9:48:44 PM, Rudy wrote: <> I'll jump. Just finished two catch-ups -- Brightness Falls from the Air and Catch the Lightning. Currently finishing The Garden of Iden (thanks to whomever it was who recommended that last month -- it's great fun) and next in the pile is Brown Girl in the Ring. The BDG isn't constraining, I think. Perhaps people are uncomfortable, as I am, only when the OT discussions get personal and prickly. Joys of the season, phoebe wray ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:20:15 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: The role of the BDG/what are fol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT This seems to have come only to me...apologies if it wasn't for the list as a whole. Phoebe, is _Brightness..._ Catherine Asaro as well? In a message dated 12/24/98 9:48:44 PM, Rudy wrote: <> I'll jump. Just finished two catch-ups -- Brightness Falls from the Air and Catch the Lightning. Currently finishing The Garden of Iden (thanks to whomever it was who recommended that last month -- it's great fun) and next in the pile is Brown Girl in the Ring. The BDG isn't constraining, I think. Perhaps people are uncomfortable, as I am, only when the OT discussions get personal and prickly. Joys of the season, phoebe wray Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:39:36 -0800 Reply-To: Carol Tilley Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Carol Tilley Subject: feminist utopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE2F6C.C1DCD080" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE2F6C.C1DCD080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Feminist utopias...arose after a period of trying to achieve a certain = equality with men, and realizing that the 'problem' may also lie within = us women. -Chris In my experience, gender, leadership and dominance interact uniquely, = based upon the composition of the _group_. A gender-mixed group led by a = man vs a gender mixed group led by a woman; a male group led by a female = vs a female group led by a male; a female group led by a female vs a = male group led by a male; the dynamics in each group are quite = different.=20 Neither a feminist utopia nor a masculist(?) utopia is the answer. = Defining a common goal(s), assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the = members of the group, leadership included, and agreeing on a course of = action(buy-in) are vital. For me, the most boring existence would be living within a community = composed solely of my clones. At the other end of the spectrum, would be = living in a community where I had no qualities in common with the other = members. I am not looking for _equality_ with either men or women. And the = 'problem' does not lie within us women or them men. I think that if we take care of each other...and we take care of = ourselves, that the need to dream of distant, imaginary, gender-based = utopian civilizations will diminish. sharing this evening of community with the real and abstract carol ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE2F6C.C1DCD080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Feminist utopias...arose after a = period of=20 trying to achieve a certain equality with men, and realizing that the = 'problem'=20 may also lie within us women.
-Chris
 
In my experience, gender, leadership = and=20 dominance interact uniquely, based upon the composition of the _group_. = A=20 gender-mixed group led by a man vs a gender mixed group led by a woman; = a male=20 group led by a female vs a female group led by a male; a female group = led by a=20 female vs a male group led by a male; the dynamics in each group are = quite=20 different.
Neither a feminist utopia nor a = masculist(?)=20 utopia is the answer. Defining a common goal(s), assessing the strengths = and=20 weaknesses of the members of the group, leadership included, and = agreeing on a=20 course of action(buy-in) are vital.
For me, the most boring existence = would be=20 living within a community composed solely of my clones. At the other end = of the=20 spectrum, would be living in a community where I had no qualities in = common with=20 the other members.
I am not looking for  = _equality_ with=20 either men or women. And the 'problem' does not lie within us women or = them=20 men.
I think that if we take care of each = other...and=20 we take care of ourselves, that the need to dream of distant, imaginary, = gender-based utopian civilizations will diminish.
 
sharing this evening of community with the real and=20 abstract
carol
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE2F6C.C1DCD080-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:05:48 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melissa Subject: Re: The role of the BDG/what are folks reading? In-Reply-To: <199812242148.QAA21380@mailbox.syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Maybe something interesting to do would be to have people post >what they are currently reading (FSFFU -ish) or what the top >couple of books in their must-get-to-soon pile are... This way we >can all get an idea of how many of us are on the list and the wide >variety of stuff we are all reading and can talk about with each other. Recently read: _The Sparrow_ and _Children of God_ (prompted by the BDG), and _On Basilisk Station_ (prompted by discussion on this list - BTW, thanks, I enjoyed it immensely). I also just finished _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ which is great fun. . . . In the to be read pile: _Honor of the Queen_, the two new Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover novels (guilty pleasures), the most recent Year's Best Fantasy and Horror anthology. I haven't been on the list long, but I've enjoyed the BDG so far. . . .Has a book been selected for January? Melissa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:33:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <2190862@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:49 PM 12/17/98 CST, you wrote: >>-- believe nothing that is not either empirically demonstrable or >>logically necessary. > >That someone actually posted this on a list of people who read >feminist science fiction and fantasy cracks me up. No, no, don't >explain how you reconcile this; I'm happy enough just sitting here and >chuckling to myself. > >j > That somebody was actually post this on a list of people who write science fiction and fantasy cracked me up. Surely the belief that our words are necessary and strangers will pay for them is not logical and unreliably demonstrable. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:50:37 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/25/98 5:29:34 AM, you wrote: <<>That someone actually posted this on a list of people who read >feminist science fiction and fantasy cracks me up. No, no, don't >explain how you reconcile this; I'm happy enough just sitting here and >chuckling to myself. > >j > That somebody was actually post this on a list of people who write science fiction and fantasy cracked me up. Surely the belief that our words are necessary and strangers will pay for them is not logical and unreliably demonstrable. Rebecca>> m'gosh! The stuff of fantasy! To believe, for the nonce at least and in that gt a brain-tweak, the unbelievable. Good for us!!!! good wishes from chilly New England phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:41:52 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: BDG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have to admit, I've been skimming the digest lately, occasionally omitting it unread if nothing looked interesting. Is there a separate page now for the BDG? Are we NOT supposed to discuss those books here? I've already said all I want to say on "The Sparrow." I said it before it was a selection on the BDG. Maybe other people don't want to rehash old gripes again, and THAT is the reason it's not getting discussed here. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 18:59:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <3681DA21.51E5@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: Here is a question I've always had. Why do > feminist utopias often exclude men, or separate men from women? This is > not a criticism, but rather puzzlement on my part. For myself, I > wouldn't want to live in a world without men, or with rigid separation. > But I would like to live in an egalitarian world where all people are > treated with respect, tolerance, and equity. > Most of those were written in times when men automatically took over everything they were in, or treated women as walking stereotypes, or just plain wouldn't listen. It seemed in those days the only way to develop yourself as a woman was to separate. Studies on single-gender schools up thru the present bear this out. Also see MZB's FREE AMAZON stories. The Guildhouse isolated the postulants for 6 months to "deprogram" them. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 19:10:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Speaking of religion and SF... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: ng of religion and SF... > > Anyone else (besides Mike?) read Octavia Butler's PARABLE OF THE TALENTS > yet? I did. It's the rest of Lauren Olimina's life, and definitely deals with not > only the concept of introducing a new religion (in the face of occasionally > appalling opposition) but also a kind of immortality, when at the end of > Lauren's life (not really a spoiler, we know she dies in the first few > pages of the book...) Earthseed has a continuing existance of its own. > That's a very OLD kind of immortality. One known example (~4bc-29ad) just had a birthday today (Friday). > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:26:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: The role of the BDG/what are folks reading? In-Reply-To: <802566E4.0066474C.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:38 PM 12/24/98 +0000, Mike Stanton wrote: >It seems to me, however, that far from encouraging participation, the BDG >has in fact been stifling it because people who wish to discuss books other >than the current selection are sharply discouraged from doing so (vide >Rudy's link between "courtesy" and restricting discussion to the BDG book). >Since almost all the past, current and future BDG choices are at best >"heavy" reading, this means - as I see it - that people interested in the >lighter, fun side of feminist sf/f are excluded from meaningful >participation. Personally, I've really enjoyed the BDG. I do know that some people have been confused as to its purpose, though I've never understood why. It clearly states on the BDG page that it is intended to bring a focused element to the listserv *in addition to* any other discussion that is going on, but several people have gotten the idea that they aren't supposed to talk about other books. I've never seen anyone scold anyone else for talking about non-BDG books, so I don't know where this is coming from unless it is a confusion about off-topic discussions in general. As Rudy said, we seem to go in cycles where some list members begin talking about subjects completely outside the realm of feminist science fiction and other members get more and more irked until someone says something and then a firestorm of argument starts about what the limits of topicality are... This has happened fairly regularly since before the BDG was created, so I don't see the BDG as a major factor in itself, though it may complicate things a little further. At 16:49:36 -0500 on 24 Dec 1998, Rudy Leon wrote: >Maybe something interesting to do would be to have people post >what they are currently reading (FSFFU -ish) or what the top >couple of books in their must-get-to-soon pile are... This way we >can all get an idea of how many of us are on the list and the wide >variety of stuff we are all reading and can talk about with each other. Okely-dokely... I am currently reading Maureen McHugh's novel *Mission Child*, which is an expansion and substantial reworking of her novella "The Cost to Be Wise." From what I have read in reviews it's supposed to have a very interesting take on gender, so I'm looking forward to having some free time again to read it! My to-be-read pile is ENORMOUS, but some books high on the list include *Jaran*, the BDG book for April; *North Wind* by Gwyneth Jones; *The Nature of Smoke* by Anne Harris; and *The Ruby Tear* by Rebecca Brand (aka Suzy McKee Charnas). I've also gotten a number of anthologies lately, which may include some feminist SF: two volumes of Dozois' *Year's Best SF*, *The Essential Bordertown* eds. Terri Windling and Delia Sherman, and *The Best of Crank!* ed. Bryan Cholfin. If I am not killed by an avalanche of books I look forward to reporting my findings... ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...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: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 11:24:53 -0500 Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: suzanne feldman Organization: or lack thereof Subject: Re: The role of the BDG/what are folks reading? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy Leon wrote: > I'll start: The two books I am deciding between starting right this > very *now* are Butler's _Parable of the Sower_ and the paperback > re-release of Heglund's _Into the Forest_. I have been halfway > through Louise Erdrich's _Tracks_ since thanksgiving, and a case > could be made for a fantastic quality to the work.... am looking for > something uplifting because I just finished Marge Piercy's _Small > Changes_ and am depressed about the chances radical feminism > has to take root enough to effect long term changes. > > How about everyone else? Okay, I'll de-lurk and add my 2 cents. Here's what I'm reading: THE SHIPPING NEWS by E. Annie Proulx (pron: 'Smith') which has a closeted Lesbian in it who's almost more substancial, though still a bit more cardboard than Proulx's main character. It can't possibly be considered SF, but it sure is interesting, and extremely well written. TRACKS, although apparently not one of Erdrich's favorite books (her first novel, I think) is one of my all-time loves. It's myth and reality and dreams and history--an AMAZING book, and I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to discuss it here--are you listening, Rudy? I'm getting ready to read BROWN GIRL IN THE RING (which my partner raved about) and Maureen McHugh's new book, as well as the Tiptree winners in a collection called FLYING CUPS AND SAUCERS which I just got in the mail. Personally, re: the BDG and OT postings, I LIKE reading what people have to say, even if I don't agree with it. The religeon/death/imperialist-policies-in-other-lands threads have been really interesting. I think the headers (BDG/OT etc) keep the threads organized for those who following them, or not. My feeling is---more talk! not less. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:45:58 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Speaking of religion and SF... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/25/98 6:03:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, mathews@UNM.EDU writes: << Octavia Butler's >> I really did not like the one book of hers I read. Had to force myself to pick it up and finish it. It read like Heinlein, with female pronouns but not (it seemed to me) much feminist ideology. Just another dog-eats-dog point of view. I was disappointed. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 19:27:37 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Recent reading Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Following Rudy's lead, I'm giving a list of the feministsf/f books that I read during our recent Central/East Asian trip. All the authors except Friesner and Cooper have been recommended by people on this list. The books were picked by various members of our project team as being easy reads suitable for travelling. For the sake of interest, I've indicated how much *I enjoyed* them using 1-5 stars. Asaro, Catherine: _The radiant seas_ (****_), Aurora in four voices_ [in _Analog_ Dec 1998] (****-) Cherryh, CJ: _Serpent's reach_ (****-), _Merchanter's luck_ (****-) Cooper, Louise: _The king's demon_ (***--) Egan, Doris: _The gate of Ivory (***--), _Two-bit heroes (***--). Friesner, Esther: _The Sherwood game_ (***--), _Here be demons_ (***--), _Demon blues_ (***--), Gentle, Mary: _Grunts!: a fantasy with attitude_ (*****), _Scholars and soldiers_ (****-) McCaffrey, Anne: _The ship who searched_ [with Mercedes Lackey] (*----), _Generation warriors_ [with Elizabeth Moon] (***--) Stirling, S M: _Drakon (*****), _The Rose Sea_ [with Holly Lisle] (*****) _The ship avenged_ (*****) The only other fiction I read was Harry Turtledove's _How few remain_(disappointing). At preesnt I'm reading P J O'Rourke's _Eat the rich [a treatise on economics]_ (hilarious) but I hope to start Nalo Hopkinson's _Brown girl in the ring_ on Monday. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) __________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:03:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm quite happy that we are discussing the value and organization of the BDG. (Especially right now when I have two whole days off work.) We've been doing BDG for about a year now, so it makes a lot of sense to review and consider how to improve it. Of course we could also consider stopping, but response overall seems to be positive at this point. I just want to reiterate, though Mike pointed this out already, that the whole point was to get lots of people to read a book at the same time to make discussions more inclusive and interesting and valuable. I have to say, in that sense it's been a resounding success. I can't begin to say how much more I've got out of the books I've read with your insight and analysis. Some things we've learned so far is to make it very clear as others have mentioned that our planned discussions don't preclude any other discussions. Also, it's OK to discuss selected books prior to the official discussion period, as long as you warn about spoilers (no need for spoiler warnings during the discussion period.) The BDG should not feel constraining, it should be merely an enhancement to this list. Perhaps it would be helpful to periodically post a brief summary of how the BDG works, say at the start of each discussion? That might help clarify things for folks new to the list and be a subtle encouragement for us to use good list etiquette. This doesn't resolve the concern that Mike brought up, that the presence of the BDG format actually discourages discussion of other books. I personally don't feel that I've been constrained (except for time to read books off the list!), in fact I thought the recent discussions of Dark Water's Embrace and Hand of Prophecy were two examples of discussions I participated in and really enjoyed completely outside of the BDG format. So I guess the problem might be some of us not realizing it's OK to bring up other books, or feeling based on comments by others that it is discouraged. Regularly posting a summary message about BDG might help this; I'm not sure what else we could do. One tricky thing not brought up so far has been the presence of the author on the list during the discussion. I know this has been a mixed bag for the various authors -- some love the feedback and others end up leaving rather than read the discussions of their work. I've corresponded with several of them and it seems to be an individual thing. I think the list is greatly enhanced by the presence of the people generating these books we love. I guess we should just assume the author is present, whether she makes it known or not; it's okay to be critical of a book as long as you're specific and not personal. I have several comments about proposed changes to the book selection process but I'll put them in a separate email. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:49:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG selection process changes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" First, thanks to Terri Wakefield, Petra Mayerhofer, Kathleen Friello, Janice Dawley, Joan Bowman, Lindy Lovvik, Barbara Benesch, Joslyn Grassby, Maryelizabeth Hart, Geoffrey Sperl, and of course Laura Quilter. Without your help we would not have these organized discussions. Of course thanks also to all of you for your enthusiastic participation and thoughtful contributions. There are a couple of changes the nomination/vote team would like to make in the book selection process. For one, there are some authors (e.g. Sheri Tepper, Connie Willis) who consistently have multiple books nominated and votes split between them preventing any one of them from winning. Based on the last year, I think that many people voting for one author's work would also be happy to discuss a different book by that author. So I'd like to propose, in the case of multiple books per author nominated, that votes are counted by author and the authors with the most votes are selected. The books for the selected authors with the most votes are the ones read for that period. This is less complicated than it sounds, and will probably need some refinement, but it should end up more fair than our current system. Also, we should probably consider naming an "alternate" selection in the event a book becomes unavailable (as was Shadow Man this fall). We can make this the book with the runner-up number of votes, unless one of you has a better idea. This plan means some of you may purchase a book we don't end up officially discussing, though we could do it informally if we don't get to it during the regular period. And finally, there was the fine idea that those of you nominating short story collections, especially large ones (e.g. Women of Wonder) include with your nomination a specific set of the stories for discussion so there's some structure to the discussion. If you're interested in numbers, here are a few statistics: We've had an increasing number of people participating in the selection process. I can't find my spreadsheet from the first selection process in February, but the second in May drew 43 votes, and the most recent in October drew 58. Looking at the size of the folders with saved discussion messages, Mists of Avalon drew by far the most discussion, followed by Alien Influences (a lot of "what is feminist?" debate) and then Snow Queen. I don't have folders with Ammonite or Dreamsnake discussions, though, so my numbers may be faulty. I invite your comments and suggestions! Regards, Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:58:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: The role of the BDG In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981224220548.007c3890@www27.web2010.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:05 PM 12/24/98 -0600, Melissa wrote: >... I haven't been on the list long, but I've enjoyed the BDG so far. . . .Has >a book been selected for January? The current BDG web page is somewhat outdated. Janice has thoughtfully prepared an updated page that we are waiting for Laura to post, including archives of recent discussions. Here's an excerpt from it with the upcoming discussions: Upcoming Books for 1999, with the date discussion begins: January 4 Brown Girl in the Ring, by Nalo Hopkinson February 1 The Female Man, by Joanna Russ March 1 A Fisherman of the Inland Sea, by Ursula K. Le Guin April 5 Jaran, by Kate Elliott Note: Our next round of selections will be nominated and voted on in February 1999. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:55:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty Subject: Re: Recent reading In-Reply-To: <802566E6.006AD894.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi all, Reading The Sparrow , Drakon, Oyster, Black Wine, & Florida Saltwater Fishing....holding Parable of the Talents, Blameless in Abaddon, Stories by TC Boyle, and waiting for Mission's Child, Asaro's new book and the next installment in George RR Martin's Game of Thrones..... cheers JB ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 14:59:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Recent reading Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just read: _Mission Child_ (fascinating premise!, interesting treatment) by Maureen McHugh, _Slippage_ by Harlan Ellison (yum), _Sewer, Gas & Electric_ by Matt Ruff (surprisingly feminist, and very fun, if a touch long); on the pile to-be-read _Nebula Awards 31_ (I know, I know, I'm late), _Ecstasy Club_ by Douglas Rushkoff, _Dream of Glass_ by Jean Mark Gawron, and _Magazine Beach_ by Lewis Gannett... Doncha just love the holidays? Heather =) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:20:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Recent reading In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19981226130702.3477d918@zipcon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, all, Thought I'd check in with _On Basilisk Station_. Thanks to all who recommended this series; it's space opera at its best! A bit late for the discussion, but - what I found particularly likable was the thorough explaination the author gave to the new technologies. Although the explainations were much more unobtrusive (except for that last battle scene, but where else could you put it?), it reminded me of the endearing way '40's and '50's authors such as John Campbell would hold up an invasion of the entire galaxy to make sure the reader knew how gamma rays worked. Anyway, thanks for the great recommendataion - I'll be going through the rest as slowly as I can, given a total lack of self-control where SF is concerned. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:30:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG selection process changes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/26/98 8:08:50 PM, Jennifer wrote: <> This seems like a good idea, applied, as you say, to authors with multiple books. Also second your idea of an alternate selection in case a book isn't available. I have found the discussions interesting and enlightening. best wishes phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 08:42:22 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Gate To Women's Country MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the clarification on the BDG. I don't quite understand it at first read, but I will review it again. It seems that it's okay to discuss different things, as long as no one gets nasty. Let me know if this isn't true. So, I am reading The Gate To Women's Country, between holiday obligations, and have enjoyed it thus far. This is the first Tepper book I've read, and it was published in 1988. But at this point, page 76 of the spectra ed., she says, 'Even in preconvulsion [which I assume to be our] times it had been known that the so-called 'gay syndrome' was caused by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy.' she goes on to say that some freaks will mate with grasshoppers if they will hold still long enough. Okay, so, I put the book down, and started Parable of the Sower. But I want to know if anyone can assure me that this statement in GTWC will be 'corrected' later in the book, or if this obvious hostility toward gays will stand through the book. I cannot separate the bigotry of the author from her work. I've heard great things about Tepper, but life is too short to spend reading the works of a homophobe. Sorry if my reaction seems too knee-jerk, but I have had some time to think about it, and haven't changed my mind, yet. Please enlighten me. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:54:16 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country In-Reply-To: <368654C5.4969@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 27 Dec 98, , Cathie Miller wrote: > It seems that it's okay to > discuss different things, as long as no one gets nasty. My understanding is that 'different things' are OK as long as they are SF/F related. Folks don't tend to get nasty until well into the why-is-everyone-so-off-topic conversation >>> So, I am reading The Gate To Women's Country, between holiday obligations, and have enjoyed it thus far. This is the first Tepper book I've read, and it was published in 1988. But at this point, page 76 of the spectra ed., she says, 'Even in preconvulsion [which I assume to be our] times it had been known that the so- called 'gay syndrome' was caused by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy.' she goes on to say that some freaks will mate with grasshoppers if they will hold still long enough. >>> We've had lots and lots of discussion over this sentence. It is offensive, and extremely problematic, and no, not dealt with at all later in the book. I think Tepper, from reading most of her stuff, is uncomfortable with homosexuality, to the point that where she has homosexual characters they don't feel fully-fleshed. This is the only place where she makes such an offensive and blatant statement, and the way it most makes sense to me is as a plot device. Eliminating homosexuality makes the plot run more smoothly, and to say much more than that would be to give away one of the most surprising endings I've ever come across. Because of this, I wouldn't recommend going and reading the discussions of the book in the archives. There's practically *no way* to discuss the book without the ending.... So is she excused for this statement because it solves some plotting problems? I don't know. It's an unacceptable statement that also seems completely out of place in the ideological schema she paints and presents in her work. I hope you'll read the book anyway, because it is one of my absolute favorite works, as long as I bracket that statement as plot-driven. Read it, read the archived stuff (or e me, and I'll send what I have of it to you...) and I know I am and will be very interested in what your end take of it is. Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 07:28:42 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: No Name Available Subject: BDG: Brown Girl in the Ring, online references Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Nalo Hopkinson, Brown Girl in the Ring: Misc: author's web page: http://www.sff.net/people/nalo/ author's website page of reviews, relevant info on the book http://www.sff.net/people/nalo/nalotext/current/2brngrl.html Warner Books Aspect, page on BGitR with links, info on Warner Aspect First Novel Contest http://www.pathfinder.com/@@DKHvgUAuNFNNMqw/twep/aspect/authors/nalo_hopkinson /brown_girl_in_ring/ Brown Girl in the Ring folk song, lyrics: http://www.jamaicans.com/folk/brwgirl.htm http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/5448/brown_girl.html [this novel has been discussed on this list, and comments can be searched; however, the below does contain a post by the author, discussing her choice of the title] http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/listserv/log9710e.txt Article on Octavia Butler receiving "genius grant" written by NH for Dark Planet http://www.cyberus.ca/~lusnyde/lucy/dp2/butler.html Reviews: African American Literature Book Club, by Sheree R. Thomas (spoilers) http://aalbc.com/brown.htm SF Site review, by Neil Walsh http://sfsite.com/jul98b/brow37.htm Fantasy & Science Fiction, by Charles de Lint http://sfsite.com/fsf/depts/review01.htm Amazon page has blurb/excerpts from published reviews, no reader reviews posted ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 19:39:27 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 27 Dec 98, at 8:42, Chris [Cathie Miller] wrote: > So, I am reading The Gate To Women's Country... [b]ut at > this point, page 76 of the spectra ed., she says, 'Even in > preconvulsion [which I assume to be our] times it had > been known that the so-called 'gay syndrome' was caused > by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy.' I also noted the same sentence (but on p. 66 in my Transworld [Bantam] UK edition). The sentence following ("The women doctors now identified the condition as 'hormonal reproductive maladaption' and corrected it before birth") - I felt - proved conclusively that Tepper believed that homosexuality in general was completely undesirable. I find it difficult to accept Tepper's statement as a plot device to make the plot run smoothly as Rudy suggests. I would have thought that encouraging homosexuality amongst the senior warriors (who chose not to return to women's country) and forbidding it to 'junior' warriors (who might return) would have been the ideal solution to many problems connected with the secret (p. 256-259). Similarly the secret programme would be much easier to carry out if all the women were lesbian because reproductive activity could be controlled. On 27 Dec 98, at 13:54, Rudy Leon wrote (apropos TGTWC): > It's an unacceptable statement that also seems completely > out of place in the ideological schema she paints and > presents in her work. I don't know that you can say that. The society of women is led by a self-perpetuating oligarchy of mainly near-geriatric medicinewomen, controlling the female proletariat through sex and by creating artificial shortages of food, medicine and manufactured products. At the same time the councils wage war using brainwashed male janissaries who are also slaughtered in unnecessary wars to keep their numbers down (p.274). The secret programme has the desirable side-effect of producing docile male slaves for the women (in the same way that Jael, in Russ' _The female man_ kept a lobotomised male sex-slave). While reading the book, I was struck by the similarity between the women's culture and a much watered-down version of Orwell's _1984_. Did anyone else notice how the 'secret programme' resembled some of Himmler's more fantastic eugenic ideas? >...to give away one of the most surprising endings I've > ever come across. It may be surprising to you, but certainly not to any avid reader of detective stories! My husband got to p. 72 on which a clear description of artificial insemination occurs S P O I L E R and predicted the 'secret' (he thought the breeding programme involved some sort of sex-linked [like haemophilia - female-carried / male-displayed] 'Talent' which is near enough). AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:39:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: Recent reading Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reading Slonczewski's THE CHILDREN STAR; just completed Harrison's STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER, Pratchett's HOGFATHER, and Michaels' SISTER TO THE RAIN; waiting for the new Asaro, the new Martin, and the new Modesitt. Marsha Valance Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53233-1436 "That All May Read!" My opinions are my own--the library wouldn't want them! >>> J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty 12/26 2:55 PM >>> Hi all, Reading The Sparrow , Drakon, Oyster, Black Wine, & Florida Saltwater Fishing....holding Parable of the Talents, Blameless in Abaddon, Stories by TC Boyle, and waiting for Mission's Child, Asaro's new book and the next installment in George RR Martin's Game of Thrones..... cheers JB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:05:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: BDG review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jennifer: I endorse the suggestions about a) dealing with authors with multiple works and b) listing an alternate book in the event that a book which is supposed to be available disappears again. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:05:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: PARABLE OF THE TALENTS -- reply to Susan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I guess I took a view where a lot of the reasons Earthseed was soemwhat subsumed had to do with idealism vs. practical application, if that makes sense. And I agree that Larkin's response to her mother's devotion to Earthseed was unreasonable -- but I thought it read realistically. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:42:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Brown Girl in the Ring: background information Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There's tons of information on the web about the underlying religious and mythological aspects of Brown Girl In The Ring. Of course, when the subject is religion, there is always room for personal interpretation and controversy, so consider these links in that light. We have been exposed to much misinformation about Voudou, Santeria, and the various related Orisha-based religions and this is a great chance to learn more. This list is by no means complete, but each site below has links to others so use this as your starting points. -- OrishaNet (largely Cuban) -- A site with a more African perspective: --- General information on Yoruba religion and myth: --- Vodun/Voodoo information pages, including some links that discuss "black magic" and zombies. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:24:20 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: GTWC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank everyone for their comments about the homophobia in GTWC. I hope I don't astonish others when I say that I turned from page 76 to page 267 and read the last 50 or so pages of the book and finished it, simply so that I would know what the surprise was at the end. I was disappointed. I didn't think the surprise was that surprising (I had already suspected that Joshua was too empathetic to be merely a servant), and certainly didn't think the end justified the earlier homophobia. Also, somewhere during these last 30 pages (forgive my not citing the line), it was noted that the servants who behaved effeminately were not chosen as fathers. In general, I felt that it was fascist. And if the Council did what they did to right wrongs, it was no more defensible than any other vengeance. I felt that, at best, Tepper was showing that men can be destructive and must be tamed, and at worst, I think she was saying that women are as destructive and power-hungry as men and would do no better in charge. So, I guess I am saying that (tempered by the fact I refused to read the middle 200 pages of the book) I didn't think it was worth reading, and it steeled me against trying any of her other books. Thanks for sharing, Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:53:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Brown Girl in the Ring: background information Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks for the urls Jennifer! much appreciated. phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 17:43:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: PARABLE OF THE TALENTS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: I guess I took a view where a lot of the reasons Earthseed was soemwhat subsumed had to do with idealism vs. practical application, if that makes sense. By Earthseed, do you mean the Acorn community? I am not completely clear - do you mean that Acorn, or the idea that Olamina has of creating Earthseed communities, is shown to be impractical by the oppressive circumstances that threaten to destroy Acorn? It seems to me that Olamina gives up on the idea of "practical application" of her religion (unless you count the eventual goal of space colonization as a practical application, and I don't, since it is so unspecific in its content) and opts for a much less grounded missionary approach. Isn't this the same theory/practice split that feminsts have critiqued for years? Earthseed becomes something which gives people purpose in life - not a bad idea. But I don't see this as "practical" versus the "ideal" of attempting to actually create a religious community. As Riane Eisler writes, "Religion supports and perpetuates the social organization it reflects". _Parable of the Talents_ is so vague in its description of Earthseed that it's really hard to say what kind of social organization Olamina (Butler?) envisions. And that seems important to know, doesn't it? Thanks for responding, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 21:23:31 -0500 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: TerrierGraphics Subject: BDG Terri, as you requested here's the first of my postings: >From: Jennifer Krauel >Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG review >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >I'm quite happy that we are discussing the value and organization of the >BDG. (Especially right now when I have two whole days off work.) We've >been doing BDG for about a year now, so it makes a lot of sense to review >and consider how to improve it. Of course we could also consider stopping, >but response overall seems to be positive at this point. > >I just want to reiterate, though Mike pointed this out already, that the >whole point was to get lots of people to read a book at the same time to >make discussions more inclusive and interesting and valuable. I have to >say, in that sense it's been a resounding success. I can't begin to say >how much more I've got out of the books I've read with your insight and >analysis. > >Some things we've learned so far is to make it very clear as others have >mentioned that our planned discussions don't preclude any other >discussions. Also, it's OK to discuss selected books prior to the official >discussion period, as long as you warn about spoilers (no need for spoiler >warnings during the discussion period.) The BDG should not feel >constraining, it should be merely an enhancement to this list. > >Perhaps it would be helpful to periodically post a brief summary of how the >BDG works, say at the start of each discussion? That might help clarify >things for folks new to the list and be a subtle encouragement for us to >use good list etiquette. > >This doesn't resolve the concern that Mike brought up, that the presence of >the BDG format actually discourages discussion of other books. I >personally don't feel that I've been constrained (except for time to read >books off the list!), in fact I thought the recent discussions of Dark >Water's Embrace and Hand of Prophecy were two examples of discussions I >participated in and really enjoyed completely outside of the BDG format. >So I guess the problem might be some of us not realizing it's OK to bring >up other books, or feeling based on comments by others that it is >discouraged. Regularly posting a summary message about BDG might help >this; I'm not sure what else we could do. > >One tricky thing not brought up so far has been the presence of the author >on the list during the discussion. I know this has been a mixed bag for >the various authors -- some love the feedback and others end up leaving >rather than read the discussions of their work. I've corresponded with >several of them and it seems to be an individual thing. I think the list >is greatly enhanced by the presence of the people generating these books we >love. I guess we should just assume the author is present, whether she >makes it known or not; it's okay to be critical of a book as long as you're >specific and not personal. > >I have several comments about proposed changes to the book selection >process but I'll put them in a separate email. > >Jennifer >jkrauel@actioneer.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: Jennifer Krauel >I'm quite happy that we are discussing the value and organization of the >BDG. (Especially right now when I have two whole days off work.) We've >been doing BDG for about a year now, so it makes a lot of sense to review >and consider how to improve it. Of course we could also consider stopping, >but response overall seems to be positive at this point. >Perhaps it would be helpful to periodically post a brief summary of how the >BDG works, say at the start of each discussion? That might help clarify >things for folks new to the list and be a subtle encouragement for us to >use good list etiquette. I think posting a list of the upcoming reads either weekly or biweekly would be great for new listers. Also posting the URL for the BDG web page might be helpful for those interested, and not familiar with, the workings of the BDG. Regularly posting a summary message about BDG might help >this; I'm not sure what else we could do. I agree. Terri >I have several comments about proposed changes to the book selection >process but I'll put them in a separate email. > >Jennifer >jkrauel@actioneer.com > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 20:08:59 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Gate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>So, I am reading The Gate To Women's Country, between holiday obligations, and have enjoyed it thus far. This is the first Tepper book I've read, and it was published in 1988. But at this point, page 76 of the spectra ed., she says, 'Even in preconvulsion [which I assume to be our] times it had been known that the so-called 'gay syndrome' was caused by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy.' she goes on to say that some freaks will mate with grasshoppers if they will hold still long enough. Okay, so, I put the book down, and started Parable of the Sower. >> I like Tepper. I know she does not deal well with homosexuality, and as a lesbian feminist, that makes it necessary for me to put that part of her in a little box and set it aside. I am in full agreement with the sentiment that life is too short to put up with homophobic attitudes. At the same time, I really do like Tepper. It's a little like that family relative whose politics make you want to incinerate him/her on the spot; but, if you can agree not to let that one aspect of character interfere with your friendship, said relative has a soft spot in your heart, and you value many of his/her ideas. Sometimes you can "suspend disbelief" on an attitude, and sometimes you can't. There are authors I would nominate for books to be burned because of their bigoted attitude. And, there are authors who may be PC, but leave me cold. Octavia Butler is a good example. Sharon L. Anderson