Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9812E" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 02:14:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Gate to Woman's Country I read GTWC a few months ago and loved it. I know your point, Chris, that you were disappointed at Tepper's homophobic statement, and it made you not want to read the rest of the book. I took the statement as a plot device and didn't let it interfere with my enjoyment of the rest of the book. I do think homosexuality would have worked very well in that society, but she didn't. Her choice, she's the author. She doesn't dwell on the topic, so I didn't think she was offensive. As for utopias separating the sexes, I'm all for it. Having confronted enough bombastic, domineering men at work and in life in general, I like fantasizing about a community in which men are there only on my terms. The men in GTWC were the one's I'd love to be around, and the fact that the jerks had to stay outside the gates and fight among themselves seemed a good way to handle the testosterone overload situation. The shifts I work that are covered by 3 male residents I know will have an increased number of cesarean sections. That's men, get the job done, don't count on women's bodies to be able to work in their own time without your control. Yup, I like that gate. I like the resulting increase in humanist men. I plan to read a good deal more of Tepper's work, but right now I seem caught up in Abigail Padgett who writes of a manic-depressive Child Protective Services investigator. Women come up with some mighty clever ideas, the less they write about men the more comfortable I am with the book. I just finished The Dispossessed and I can't figure out why Ursula LeGuin needed to make the main character a male. I would have loved to read more about his wife, about her childbearing and breastfeeding situations, about her work with fish hatcheries. She could have been the one to go offworld. She was a fascinating character. Why do female authors feel the need to write male main characters anyway? When my son was a little boy all the stories he wrote had himself as the main character. When my daughter was a little girl all the stories she wrote had my son as the main character. AAAGGHHH. How did that happen? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:16:26 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Re: Gate to Woman's Country MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't want to be dismissive of Tepper's work. I found the beginning of GTWC a pleasure to read. However, if this and other of her work is homophobic, how can I have faith in her as an author? I realize she is a product of her time, however, to say she cannot envision other treatments would be patronizing. She's obviously talented and intelligent. I can also admit that I will allow other authors other weaknesses, such as (one of my favorite authors) Phil Dick's sexism. Maybe I just didn't like the book enough to allow for Tepper's attitude. The first reason I can think of for LeGuin's and others' persistence in using male protag's is that they want to be taken seriously in critical and academic circles. But, SF is imaginative lit. and male protag's here cannot always be excused as, 'that's the way the world is'. There is also the possiblity that LeGuin feels she can create more rounded male characters than female characters. In any case, to write primarily about women will consign one to a smaller corner of the lit world. This doesn't explain how Oates can get away with it, but maybe she's quirky and/or grotesque enough to garner respect among men. Or maybe, she doesn't have their respect, either. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:39:44 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 additional references post-poster open Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Or whatever-- I won't be continuing to post additional/online references for books under discussion for the BDG. If anyone is interested in taking on this task, please contact Jennifer Krauel at jkrauel@actioneer.com Thanks, Kathleen M. Friello ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:34:20 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sarah Lohmann Subject: WG: Comments: To: "feministsf@uic.edu" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Sarah Lohmann > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 29. Dezember 1998 14:27 > An: 'FEMINISTST@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU.' > Betreff: WG: > Wichtigkeit: Hoch > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Sarah Lohmann > Gesendet am: Montag, 28. Dezember 1998 15:44 > An: 'feministsf@listserv.uic.edu' > Betreff: > Wichtigkeit: Hoch > > hello, > my collegue Martine and me are creating an Author`s Galery for the > Ufo-Bookstore http://www.id-online.de/ufo/berlin.htm. > Berlin. > I need "all" about Nancy Kress: book reviews, photos, biographical > material. Of course I "have" her > homepage (which I like very much), but if anybody could offer me more > material I would appreciate a lot. > I`d like to have some "voices of fans" on these pages or something > like staff recommendations. > It`s kind of difficult to find something like that on german pages. So > if someone could give me a hint....? > Martine and me are on a training programme at the women`s Computer > Centre Berlin http://www.fczb.de/ > Thank you very much > > Sarah Leslie Lohmann > > PS: It would also be extremely helpful to get internetaddresses of > feminist science-fiction bookstores (if they`re might exist something > like that...)... > I have to repeat that my knowledgle of Nancy Kress is still > kind of limited and it would be great to change that. > I`m really interested in emotions she provokes. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:00:33 -0500 Reply-To: Kate.Elliott@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alis Rasmussen Subject: Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the case of Le Guin's EARTHSEA trilogy, THE DISPOSSESSED, and THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, I think it's important to remember that these works were written during the 70s. That in itself may explain why the preponderence of male protagonists (not to mention the use of 'he' as the default pronoun in LEFT HAND). These days, given what I've read, Le Guin tends to be even handed, and writes female and male points of view (see the recent story cycles), and I think if she tends to write one gender more than another, it would be women. But the 70s were a different time for women writing sf. Of course, there was a larger question asked, too, namely: > Why do female authors feel the > need to write male main characters anyway? My short answer would be that it depends on the needs of the story, to which one might properly ask: whose story are we telling, anyway? Alis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:19:03 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country In-Reply-To: <19981228183927.3737.qmail@www0q.netaddress.usa.net> 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. Another possibility is that Tepper was attributing the distaste to the culture of the novel, intimating that our distaste for aggression may have it's downside as well ... ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net Dare to be monstrous. -- dorothy allison ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:54:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Tepper & homophobia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Without getting into "Gate" and its attitude, on which I have given my views at tedious length in earlier discussions, I would like to mention that, while I don't feel Tepper is truly "at ease" with homosexuality, I do feel she has been generally more sensitive in her later work. (Probably after Gate her consciousness was prodded by gay acquaintances!) A major character in "Shadow's End" is a lesbian; and her Jason Lynx mystery series, especially the later titles, seem to me positively supportive, though she maintains her right to discuss the matter! Shirley McClintock's attitude to the ACLU (which I suspect reflects Tepper's) bothers me rather more: they're not perfect, but -- !!!! I also feel that Gate was more of a thought experiment than a reflection of the way Tepper would actually run things given the freedom to do so, though I confess she would probably be more high-handed than would really suit me. The theme of free will versus "benevolent control" (see below)* is clearly one that intrigues her, and must designedly raise questions in the minds of most readers! But please, those who have been put off by Gate, don't give up on Tepper without trying at least one other: "Grass" would be my personal recommendation. S P O I L E R S *as, for example, the Hobbs Land Gods, or the blue message crystals of the True Game ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:11:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: THE RADIANT SEAS signing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have a very few copies of RADIANT SEAS left signed by Catherine, who was funny and charming in person when she visited on December 26. Also had the pleasure of meeting her parents, who supported her and bought a couple of books like good family members, and we discussed science, politics and writing. Wish you all could have joined us! 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: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:17:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: WG: Comments: cc: "IMA-Lohmann@FCZB.DE" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit One place you can look is www.amazon.com; there are a lot of reviews and reader comments on the english versions of her books, and there's a german amazon.com as well, which might have some reviews; it will at least have cover images from all in-print books. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Lohmann [mailto:IMA-Lohmann@FCZB.DE] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 7:34 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] WG: Importance: High > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Sarah Lohmann > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 29. Dezember 1998 14:27 > An: 'FEMINISTST@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU.' > Betreff: WG: > Wichtigkeit: Hoch > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Sarah Lohmann > Gesendet am: Montag, 28. Dezember 1998 15:44 > An: 'feministsf@listserv.uic.edu' > Betreff: > Wichtigkeit: Hoch > > hello, > my collegue Martine and me are creating an Author`s Galery for the > Ufo-Bookstore http://www.id-online.de/ufo/berlin.htm. > Berlin. > I need "all" about Nancy Kress: book reviews, photos, biographical > material. Of course I "have" her > homepage (which I like very much), but if anybody could offer me more > material I would appreciate a lot. > I`d like to have some "voices of fans" on these pages or something > like staff recommendations. > It`s kind of difficult to find something like that on german pages. So > if someone could give me a hint....? > Martine and me are on a training programme at the women`s Computer > Centre Berlin http://www.fczb.de/ > Thank you very much > > Sarah Leslie Lohmann > > PS: It would also be extremely helpful to get internetaddresses of > feminist science-fiction bookstores (if they`re might exist something > like that...)... > I have to repeat that my knowledgle of Nancy Kress is still > kind of limited and it would be great to change that. > I`m really interested in emotions she provokes. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: ljohn@utica.ucsu.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Larisa John Subject: Le Guin, Gender and Gender Relations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A couple people have mentioned Le Guin's characters in relation to the use of female protagonists and depictions of gender relations. I would suggest that they may wish to read Le Guin's essays in "The Language of the Night : Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction" (NY, Putnam, 1979) especially "Is gender necessary?". Also, no one mentioned "Tehanu" which is the 4th in the Earthsea series. This book looks directly at women's lives and powers (both magical and mundane) in the world of Earthsea. Le Guin wrote another essay specifically on gender and race in the Earthsea books, but I cannot remember where it was published offhand. Larisa John Utica College Library ljohn@utica.ucsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:31:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: Gate to Woman's Country In-Reply-To: <3688C812.7086@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII IF, as I understand it, this listserv was set up to discuss feminist science fiction, fantasy, and utopian _literature_, I think we should stick to the discussion of literature (fiction, texts), not writers. Sheri Tepper s _The Gate to Women's Country_ is not a personal manifestoit is a novel, a piece of fiction. _Nothing_ in it should be understood as other than part of that fiction, least of all as evidence of any personal belief or attitude of the writer. _Everything_ in it must be examined to see what function it performs in that fiction if we are reading it to understand it. TGWC is, moreover, a _science fiction_ novel. Science fiction is not predictive or descriptive, but speculative and provocative. It is based on the question "What if . . . ?", and it consists of "thought-experiments" (see Le Guin, "Is Gender Necessary?"), or hypotheses. In the case of TGWC , the question (loosely formulated) is: what if a group of women, in a future where civilization has collapsed, find themselves in a position to reconstruct a portion of human society in which, through the use of eugenics, the gene for male aggressivity can be eliminated from the gene pool? Does this end justify the means, and what precisely do those means involve. Tepper sets up her thought-experiment to examine the means, the ends, and the alternatives. The specific passage which disturbs people is towards the end of chapter 8, beginning "Stavia bit her lip" and ending "rape wasn't tolerated in Women's Country." In its local context in the narrative at this point, it is a piece of third-person-limited narration, intended to reveal Stavia's thoughts on the subject of homosexuality. She is still very young, not yet fully trained as a medic, and she is remembering what she has been taught: "it had been known", "women doctors now identified the condition", and "so the instructors said." It is part of the characterization of Stavia as, at this point, a naive observer outside the Council. The observation is a legitimate part of the characterization of the novel's protagonist as it relates to the novel's thought-experiment and there is no evidence in the passage that the writer (Tepper) is speaking in her own person. In its general context of the structure of Women's Country, moreover, the prebirth correction of "hormonal reproductive maladaptation" is an integrated part of the eugenics programme of the Council, and not a gratuitous piece of homophobia on the part of the writer. The object of the Council's programme is to maximise the number of births where the gene for male aggressivity has been eliminated. In order to do this, the Council needs to have the maximum number of women having babies every year. If lesbianism were to exist in Women's Country as Tepper has set it up, it would cut down the number of pregnancies, since women who go with women at Carnival time would certainly know that they had not got pregnant that way and therefore could not be inseminated unwittingly as are the women who go with men. (That they could be told and asked to volunteer to be inseminated would be implausible, since it would be extremely hazardous to the secrecy of the programme - even if they themselves told no one, someone would inevitably become suspicious.) If homosexuality had been included in the setup, Tepper would have been working with a different thought-experiment, and we would be reading a different novel. No one has to read a novel if he or she does not want to. But everybody should at least try to distinguish the writer from the text. After reading (many times), _The Gate to Women's Country_, I am convinced it is an excellent novel, but I don't want to live in Women's Country! ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:56:15 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: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/98 8:14:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, chuard@earthlink.net writes: << Another possibility is that Tepper was attributing the distaste to the culture of the novel, intimating that our distaste for aggression may have it's downside as well ... >> Tepper may have been familiar with some of the earlier brain development studies that showed embryos could be effected in utero by the hormones of other-sex siblings. For instance, female rats that gestated next to male siblings grew up noticably more aggressive than females that were next to sisters. Male rats that gestated next to females were also effected. I can get you the references for this research, if you would like. The interesting thing is that the researchers decided that these variations in male-female behaviors probably worked out better for the survival of the species as a whole. PLEASE don't anybody flame me for this, OK? Just passing on the info... Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:16:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: Recent reading MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'm currently reading "Sunderlies Seeking" (Gayle Greeno's latest; the first in the "Ghatten's Gambit" series - I'm a sucker for anything that mixes cats and fantasy), and am feeling little bogged down because I haven't read the other series recently enough, and this one builds on it quite a bit. Recently read: Asprin's two "Phule" books and a couple of Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" books (I'm also a sucker for comedic SF) "Chicks in Chainmail" - the one about the tax on bronze bras had me laughing out loud. For those who haven't read this, it's an anthology of stories about realistic fighting women (avoiding the stereotypes of women in fantasy either being completely passive and weak or, if they do fight, fighting in scanty unrealistic armor and being unrealistically beautiful and voluptuous). For the most part, most of the stories manage this quite well; overall, I thought it was well worth the read; there were a couple of stories that I felt didn't live up to the goal of the anthology, but most of them did. I'm looking forward to getting ahold of the next one, "Did you say Chicks?" -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Marsha Valance [mailto:Mvalan@MPL.ORG] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 10:40 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Recent reading 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: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:47:14 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 29 Dec 98, at 11:19, geminiwalker wrote: > Another possibility is that Tepper was attributing the distaste to > the culture of the novel, intimating that our distaste for > aggression may have it's downside as well ... A very perceptive point and one which I hadn't considered because the author illustrates this downside in too many other ways for such a hurtful one to be necessary. The best illustration is perhaps the comment "...[w]e call ourselves the Damned Few. And if the Lady has a heaven for the merciful, we are not sure that any of us will ever see it" (p. 256 in my edition). Reminds me of Rudolf Hoess' justification for his part in the 'Final Solution'. _I think_ that there are some plot devices that are unacceptable, unless they are shown to be unequivocally evil. The most obvious would be a justification for the Holocaust. A glorification of slavery in the US South is a second. Tepper's insensitivity illustrates another. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:58:18 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: Gate to Woman's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit To Pat Monk... Nicely put! best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:08:11 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: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/98 11:12:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: << Tepper's insensitivity illustrates another. >> But, wait....would we not be glad to see a solution that ends facism? Don't we like stories that show the overthrow of the Nazis (sometimes stories with lots of shooting and blowing up of Nazi soldiers?). Don't we love stories that show the slaves somehow outwitting the slave owners, or the slaves engaging in revolution or the colonists standing up to the colonials? Isn't the question of male violence, where it occurs, why it occurs, what we can do about it...isn't that revolutionary and hopeful? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 22:14:36 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: kelly boyle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Why do female authors feel the > need to write male main characters anyway? Is it in any way inappropriate for a woman to write about men? Or for men to write about women? There is a certain danger that the argument 'women writers should write about female protagonists since there are so few' degenerates into 'women should write about what they know' or 'women's concerns' and you end up with an idea of women's concerns that looks much like the lady's page of any more conservative newspaper (when they still had them). Here in Sweden, there was an attempt to make women's TV programmes, and they ended up being about clothes, make-up, potted plants, and furniture - as if women could not take an interest in other things. There are female writers (Barbara Hambly springs to mind) whom I think are good not because they write about the kind of female main character I would like to be (she doesn't always), but because they write about the kind of male protagonist that I would like to know. Is it not a valid concern for a woman writer to create male characters that are different from the standard male character, and is this not something to which SF is uniquely suited? Kristina Hildebrand ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 22:55:39 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 29 Dec 98, at 14:31, Patricia Monk wrote: > IF, as I understand it, this listserv was set up to discuss feminist > science fiction, fantasy, and utopian _literature_, I think we should > stick to the discussion of literature (fiction, texts), not writers. "...Want to find out more about these [previously listed] authors, and other writers like them?" (Extract from Laura Quilter's description of the list purpose - http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/listserv.html at 21:30UCT 29 Dec 1998). > Sheri Tepper s _The Gate to Women's Country_ is not a personal > manifestoit is a novel, a piece of fiction. _Nothing_ in it should > be understood as other than part of that fiction, least of all as > evidence of any personal belief or attitude of the writer. > _Everything_ in it must be examined to see what function it > performs in that fiction if we are reading it to understand it. Your warning that one should not "confuse the singer with the song" is a valid one but it seems odd to suggest that any literary work can be so totally separated from its author(s). Surely any work must contain _some_ elements attributable to its author's experience, education, upbringing and prejudices as well as the political, social, economic and ecological contexts within which the work was produced? Many authors have used their fiction works to propagate, for example, their own political views. Tepper is no different; the soaring "eco-anger" in _Beauty_, for example, is clearly linked to her own well-documented concern with our deteriorating environment. > No one has to read a novel if he or she does not want to. But > everybody should at least try to distinguish the writer from the text. I think you've fallen into the same trap. No one has suggested - in connection with this book or any other in the 8 months I been on this list - that every stray, provocative statement is a direct reflection of an author's innermost thoughts. What the discussion is attempting to discover is whether one particular view expressed in the "The Gate..." represents the author's personal opinion or not. This is a perfectly legitimate field of enquiry; the last time this topic came up (about Harlan Ellison in May?), a search through the "Humanities Index" produced over 100 papers by several dozen researchers on several dozen writers. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:51:47 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/98 9:13:37 PM, Kristina wrote: <> Ahhh, Kristina -- we have women's TV here, and it is 80% stories of women in peril. Of course, the good woman wins, but they are top-heavy with violence, rape, domestic violence, mental violence, kidnappings, unfairness. It's amazing to me. On the other hand, *Men's* programs seem to be about sports and tools. Maybe the fault is in those who think up these shows. The last time I was around the industry (ten years ago now), most of the producers, casting directors et al, were pretty wet behind the ears, so to speak. One long Freudian howl: What do women waaaaaaaannnnnnnttttt! Guess someone should stop asking long enough to listen. lightly lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:53:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: Kristina Hildebrand's comments In-Reply-To: <199812292113.PAA85784@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Here, here! Sophia At 10:14 PM 12/29/98 +0100, you wrote: >> Why do female authors feel the >> need to write male main characters anyway? > >Is it in any way inappropriate for a woman to write about men? Or for men >to write about women? There is a certain danger that the argument 'women >writers should write about female protagonists since there are so few' >degenerates into 'women should write about what they know' or 'women's >concerns' and you end up with an idea of women's concerns that looks much >like the lady's page of any more conservative newspaper (when they still >had them). Here in Sweden, there was an attempt to make women's TV >programmes, and they ended up being about clothes, make-up, potted plants, >and furniture - as if women could not take an interest in other things. >There are female writers (Barbara Hambly springs to mind) whom I think are >good not because they write about the kind of female main character I would >like to be (she doesn't always), but because they write about the kind of >male protagonist that I would like to know. Is it not a valid concern for a >woman writer to create male characters that are different from the standard >male character, and is this not something to which SF is uniquely suited? >Kristina Hildebrand > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:02:46 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: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This is fruitful discussion, I think. As a writer I know absolutely that my work reflects what I think and feel about things. But not entirely and not at every moment. Characters often do and say things I don't agree with or wouldn't say or do. Just as friends and acquaintances do. Yes, I agree with Anthea that Tepper's clear concern for the environment is evident in her work. It's in The Family Tree as well. Doesn't necessarily follow that she is homophobic. I liked GTWC but was let-down horribly at the end. I WANTED their society to find a better way out than the one they had. And as noted before on this list, I had some other problems with it as well, in the explotative way the women behaved towards every thing and every one, including their environment. But -- it is science fiction/fantasy. As has been said -- thought experiment. As such, it works for me. It got me thinking. it made me angry. It made me sad. I wondered if I could devise a better world... best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:01:43 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: GTWC (long) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow. This book has spurred more discussion than any since my joining the group! I hope if anyone has tired of the topic, they will simply delete this, and excuse my self-indulgence in continuing the thread. I appreciate Patricia's take on GTWC and her explanation of Tepper's (possible) experiment. And although I've just about apologized for my response to one or two paragraphs in the book, I want to support that response by commenting along a few lines of thought. 1. I'm not sure I can agree about tolerating objectionable ideas in a work of SFF simply because of its speculative and provokative aims. At some point, SFF must be as responsible to the reader as must any other literature (being one side - often the more active side - of a communication). It should be relatively clear contextually in a straightforward narrative such as GTWC what an author intends by an intensely provokative passage such as the one we've been discussing. However, because here it stands alone (and out like the proverbial sore thumb), the author's intention is a matter for much speculation. When something doesn't ring true, the reader senses it, and can choose either to ignore it, reject it, or try to make it fit. My understanding is that, in GTWC, the extreme reaction of the women toward the idea of men loving each other and, later in the book, toward effeminate men, does not seem a pragmatic attitude, but a moral/judgmental matter. And as GTWC seems to be value-driven, I would expect, if Tepper is warning against aggression/repression, that she would embrace, or at least be less threatened by, men who are not afraid to be seen in a feminine light or to take a traditionally female position. OTOH, I can see after reading Patricia's statement that Tepper may have been saying, look, any fascist regime which so utterly manipulates its subjects toward a secret agenda is going to, by definition, repress the individual's freedom to love whom they wish. What bothers me is that Tepper paints her women as ultimately sympathetic (even as the Damned Few), and paints homosexual behavior as ultimately repulsive. In the passage we're concerned with, Tepper associates raping minor boys with the 'gay syndrome'. This is a favorite association made by the 'wrong' wing, and is sure to disrupt the flow of the plot among the readers likely to read this book. 2. Hormones may be the whole point, maybe not. However, in my very subjective view, hormones probably bear a much stronger relationship to animal behavior than they do to human behavior (yes, humans are animals, but we can probably agree that humans reason to a much greater degree, and are more adaptable, than rats). Firstly, the influence upon human behavior of hormonal levels during pregnancy is unquantifiable, just as are other factors upon human behavior (education, environment, health, belief-systems). Secondly, it does not matter what influences emotional connection/sexual behavior, as long as both adults are consenting. To say that we can find or specify a 'cause' of homosexual behavior is to say that it needs excuse. However, it does not. It is a legitimate set of human behaviors which does not beg justification. Tepper may or may not be uncomfortable with that, but her society seems very defensive about the subject. Which, I concede, may have been her point (made poorly). 3. I agree that in many cases we must separate the author from her work. However, I know that my work is infused with my beliefs, values, and unique modus of ordering the chaos of my existence. If I'm going to posit that a group of people are 'bad', I had better treat that position with a little more realistic support than: well, if we accept homosexual behavior, the men won't do their duty. I remember the discussion about Grass, and am intrigued. After others' comments on GTWC, I will probably give Grass a try. But I will undoubtedly be more wary than I was in starting GTWC. Thank you for another opportunity to say more than you wanted to hear. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 22:54:19 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:00 AM 29/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > Why do female authors feel the > need to write male main characters anyway? Maybe the real question is, what _difference_ does it really make, anyway, if the protagonist (or antagonist, for that matter) is male or female? If he or she is a strong character who makes the story work, isn't that what truly matters? It makes me cringe, personally, when people say things like "You're a woman, so you should write about women". It just makes me crazy; so just because you're a woman, you can't write male characters? This isn't feminism, this is segregation: you're a man, so write about men; you're a woman, so write about women. Well, let's go one step further: you're black, so write only about black people; you're Asian, so only write about Asians; you've got one leg, so only write about one-legged people. See how ridiculous this line of thinking is? Are you any less of a feminist if there are male leading characters in your story? Of course not. In fact, I find it quite repellent to suggest that someone is somehow betraying their gender (as though they were official representatives or something) by writing about fictional characters of the opposite sex. As R. Crumb once said, "Hey, folks, it's just lines on paper". Pardon the rant, Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:56:25 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: Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 4:54:30 AM, Sant wrote: <> good rant! phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:53:36 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 12/23/98 6:49:21 AM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: >Well, I fear pain at those points, not death.> -- mmmm, I'm afraid not. Being shot through the head is as close to painless as possible -- one instant you exist, the next you don't. Or, to use another example, if you were helpless and someone approached you with a hypo full of poison -- one that would kill you painlessly -- wouldn't you be afraid? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:03:45 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: Speaking of religion and SF... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/24/98 9:25:21 AM Mountain Standard Time, mystgalaxy@AX.COM writes: >Anyone else (besides Mike?) read Octavia Butler's PARABLE OF THE TALENTS -- I read it, but I don't think I could appreciate it as much as it deserves. C.S. Lewis was once asked why he didn't review a certain category of fiction, and replied that he disliked the whole genre -- which made him incompetent to judge which individual examples were good or bad. I also found the Christian Right types a little cartoonish -- and I'm second to none in my dislike of that whole phenomenon. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:07:14 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*] 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 12:36:04 PM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >But I'm not sure we can handle a definition of masculinity that moves men towards the same behaviors usually associated with women.> -- personally, I've always felt that the most likely outcome of an actual elimination of sexism in our culture would be a convergence of behaviors much closer to the current male norm. Most stereotypic "female" behaviors are the result of the exclusion of women from the public sphere, or extreme limitations on their participation therein. Female chemical company CEO's or fighter pilots act about the same way male ones do. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:44:40 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > In a message dated 12/29/98 11:12:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET > writes: > > << Tepper's insensitivity illustrates another. >> > > > But, wait....would we not be glad to see a solution that ends facism? Don't > we like stories that show the overthrow of the Nazis (sometimes stories with > lots of shooting and blowing up of Nazi soldiers?). > > Don't we love stories that show the slaves somehow outwitting the slave > owners, or the slaves engaging in revolution or the colonists standing up to > the colonials? Isn't the question of male violence, where it occurs, why it > occurs, what we can do about it...isn't that revolutionary and hopeful? > > Madrone > > Not if we become that which we hate. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net The prolonged slavery of women is the darkest page in human history. -- Elizabeth Stanton, (1815-1902) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:02:49 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: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/28/98 11:40:15 AM Mountain Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: >Did anyone else notice how the 'secret programme' resembled some of Himmler's more fantastic eugenic ideas?> -- yup. Breeding people like animals against their will, using deliberate propagandistic lies and terrorism as methods of control... it all seems to be pretty fascist to me... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:46:49 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 12/29/98 10:15:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << personally, I've always felt that the most likely outcome of an actual elimination of sexism in our culture would be a convergence of behaviors much closer to the current male norm. >> The male (gag) norm? The male (retch) NORM? You were joking, yes? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:52:20 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: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/29/98 2:08:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >Isn't the question of male violence, where it occurs, why it occurs, what we can do about it...isn't that revolutionary and hopeful?> -- that depends. An answer to that question which runs "it's in their genes" and "all we can do about it is mass killing and Nazi-style eugenics programs" isn't at all revolutionary or hopeful. More in the nature of "reactionary, fascistic, and defeatist", in fact. Because if sexism is genetic, nothing can be done about it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:28:03 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*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 12:48:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >The male (gag) norm? The male (retch) NORM?> -- well, yeah, apart from some strictly sexual behaviors. Sexism isn't bad because women are morally superior to men; they aren't. It's easy to be virtuous when you're powerless -- no opportunity to do all the nasty things that require power. Sexism is bad because women are human beings with much the same range of capacities as men, and hence gender discrimination is unjust (and inefficient). Personally, I think predictions that the end of sexism will eliminate greed, racism, war, violence, etc., etc., are so much pigeon dung, aka 'wishful thinking'. Given the opportunity, women will use power pretty much as men have done... and as those women who _did_ have "male" positions of power used it. I read a book called "Police Woman" some time ago; it was written in the 1970's by a woman who was among the first female police officers in Washington, DC. She pointed out that when she, and others like her, first hit the street their less confrontational style of working was hailed as uniquely "female". However, what the observers hadn't taken into account was that she/they came from a very different class and social background from the males they were working with, because before the ban on street work for female officers was ended they were recruited as 'social workers with guns'. When the recruiting standards were unified, and the women came from the same working and lower-middle-class blue-collar environments as the men, much of the difference evaporated. She illustrated this with an anecdote about a "man with a gun" call she and two younger women officers went on. When they got there, she (a sergeant by this time) began politely informing the man (a bartender) that he needed a special license to carry a concealed firearm. After a moment the younger officer gently edged her aside, grabbed the guy by the back of the head, bounced his face off the bar, stuck the gun in his nose and said: "What the sarge is trying to say, ****le, is that if we catch you on the street with this piece again, you gonna get busted." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:32:10 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*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Or, to put it another way, one should not identify "women" or "female behaviors" with, say, North American middle-class academics and the way _they_ act. "Women" and "men" are great big grab-bag categories, often less than helpful. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:59:26 -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 a few of us seem to be on line at the same time. anyway, i need clarification... are you saying that the cause and effect relationship of education, health, belief systems, hormones, etc., upon human behaviors is absolutely quantifiable? I would like the stats. chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:04:48 -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 my entire (badly made) point about hormone levels and their effect upon human behaviors is this: we humans can rise above, beyond most of that because we can reason and are highly adaptable. in other words, hormones / schormones. it doesn't matter. and even if it did, it wouldn't. and the very positing of that as an issue in making judgments / manipulating sexual / emotional behaviors is morally questionable at best. and i happen to love rats. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:18:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Women Writing Male Protagonists Santanico said: >It makes me cringe, personally, when people say things like "You're a woman, >so you should write about women". It just makes me crazy; so just because >you're a woman, you can't write male characters? This isn't feminism, this >is segregation: you're a man, so write about men; you're a woman, so write >about women. Well, let's go one step further: you're black, so write only >about black people; you're Asian, so only write about Asians; you've got one >leg, so only write about one-legged people. See how ridiculous this line of >thinking is? Is the old adge "write what you know" out of date? As a woman could I write better women characters than Tolstoy? I think not, I'm not a writer. But as a woman can I look at women characters written by men and see the kind of women men want women to be rather than the kind of humans women are? Yes, and I hate that. I want literature that shows people as they are, not as we want them to be. In fiction, if we've set up a very far fetched premise that's fine as long as the people in that scenario are complete and believable. It's easy to think up a character and have her react in a way that states your premise, but if you make a real character, one you've written by examining your own soul then that allows you to examine that premise and write about it more honestly. I very much like full fledged women characters. I hate women writers to "waste their time" and write yet more male characters. We have enough, in my point of view. That's cold, I know, but I don't have all that much interest in reading about men, especially about men the way we want them to be instead of men the way they are. And yes, I do think if you're Asian it's good to write about Asians, and if you're Black it's good to write about Blacks, and if you have only one leg you would sure be able to tell me more about it than a two legged person could, if you're introspective enough. If, next month we find out that Brown Girl in the Ring was written by a white Anglican bishop, I'll change my view on sticking with what one knows. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:40:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit S.M.Stirling said: Steve, this is really way out of line. Must you? You may believe that your contributions are provocative and erudite, however, from this vantage point they are frequently petulant and offensive. I would be delighted to continue this with you privately. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:33:12 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Given the opportunity, women will use power pretty much as men have done... >and as those women who _did_ have "male" positions of power used it. This supposes a) that the way men behave in a sexually inegalitarian society which gives them a certain degree of privilege (depending on class, income, etc etc) but also generates lots of anxieties about 'appropriate' male behaviour, is an enduring norm which would survive into a more egalitarian society - i.e. isn't a lot of male behaviour (not just purely on the sexual level) as 'pathological' as 'femininity' as conventionally assigned? b) that there are no other ways, not necessarily to do with gender, to transform relations of power within society - i.e. a highly competitive social-darwinistic capitalist society will reward and encourage different kinds of behaviour from e.g. a social democratic welfare state. Lesley lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:52:20 +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*] Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Is the old adge "write what you know" out of date? As a woman could I write > better women characters than Tolstoy? I think not, I'm not a writer. But > as a woman can I look at women characters written by men and see the kind of > women men want women to be rather than the kind of humans women are? Yes, > and I hate that. I want literature that shows people as they are, not as we > want them to be. In fiction, if we've set up a very far fetched premise > that's fine as long as the people in that scenario are complete and > believable. It's easy to think up a character and have her react in a way > that states your premise, but if you make a real character, one you've > written by examining your own soul then that allows you to examine that > premise and write about it more honestly. > First of all, I would like to challenge the idea that by examining my own soul I could only come up with a female character. In what sense is my soul female? Aren't there rather a lot of concerns, experiences, and questions that touch us equally whether we are men or women? I know that men can write believable female characters - I teach Roddy Doyle 'The Woman Who Walked Into Doors' and my students always react by saying 'this was written by a man? it's so believable!' (which is why it's on the reading list). I see no reason why a woman could not write as good a male character as Tolstoy, were she as good a writer, which some are and some aren't. I see no reason why she shouldn't, if she wishes to. I have seen enough of women's proper sphere in my life, I don't want to be restrained to it by my own sisters. I have also seen the male dream-female in works, which I find interesting only from a sort of sociological viewpoint, but I do know that there are male writers whose female characters are believable and who speak my own experience or experiences I recognise from other women: Charles de Lint, Roddy Doyle, occasionally Guy Gavriel Kay, even, sometimes, though his writing certainly leaves something to be desired, Samuel Richardson. When women writers create the males we (or some of us) would like to know, I don't mean the wet-dream men, or the daddy-will-always-save-you men, but the men who are the kind of partner, or brother, or friend, a woman would want. Myself, I read more fantasy than anything else, and almost all of it by female writers, and if they are good writers both their female and male protagonists have the ring of truth to them. >One long Freudian howl: What do women waaaaaaaannnnnnnttttt! Guess someone >should stop asking long enough to listen. Doesn't anyone read medieval Arthurian stories anymore? There is the story where Arthur travels all over the world to find out what women want, and finally finds one who tells him (when he eventually has the sense to ask a woman) that women want their own way. I suppose literature was not one of Freud's strong points. Kristina Hildebrand ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:53:30 +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: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 12/29/98 10:15:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, > JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: > > << personally, I've always felt that the most likely outcome of an actual > elimination of sexism in our culture would be a convergence of behaviors much > closer to the current male norm. >> > > The male (gag) norm? The male (retch) NORM? > You were joking, yes? > > Madrone Why would it be a joke. I see your point. But again, the whole issue seems to hinge on the distinction between "male"/"female", "woman"/"man", and any binary opposition you would think of. Now, sexism is already a "loaded" word, and I do not think the original writer meant it that way. The meaning I got is the elimination of generic ("gender") distinction would eventually lead to the obliteration of boundaries between two "classified groups." Classification is violent, limiting, and conventionally "rule governed." It is not within one's own power to control it; classification itself (a cultural hidden power) controls one's own actions and behavior whether it is the masculine norm or the feminine norm. No matter how hard you try or how well-intentioned you are, eventually you will have to set up a norm that excludes an includes (I, we versus they), and from then on you are in the business of "discipline and punish." That is how your statement "You were joking, yes) will receive a "yes" answer; otherwise one will be flagged out as a communist, perhaps. Witch hunting will not be far behind. Happy holidays Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:02:25 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Myself, I read more fantasy than anything else, and almost all of it >by female writers, and if they are good writers both their female and male >protagonists have the ring of truth to them. This is so true: those men who write (wet-dream) fantasy females - how solid and 3-dimensional are their male protagonists?(too often square-jawed, competent, heroic... cardboard) >Doesn't anyone read medieval Arthurian stories anymore? There is the story >where Arthur travels all over the world to find out what women want, and >finally finds one who tells him (when he eventually has the sense to ask a >woman) that women want their own way. I suppose literature was not one of >Freud's strong points. This is Chaucer: the Wife of Bath's Tale from the _Canterbury Tales_ (and it's Sir Gawain, not Arthur himself - he's sent on this pilgrimage for some offence--I think he may even have committed rape). He has to marry the witchlike figure who tells him the answer - she sets him one of those no-win choices (as I recollect, she can be ugly by day and beautiful by night, or vice versa... or maybe it's fair and false, or ugly and faithful). He says, which would you prefer, and wins the jackpot (i.e., he has given her _her_ will, not his). Lesley lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:06:47 +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: Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Santanico wrote: > It makes me cringe, personally, when people say things like "You're a woman, > so you should write about women". It just makes me crazy; so just because > you're a woman, you can't write male characters? This isn't feminism, this > is segregation So what is the difference between feminism and segregation? Do not give the high ideals of equality, prosperity, and justice for all! As a political movement, feminism is no better nor worse than any motivated movement; whoever says otherwise will have justify her/his position. To be named as such imposes on feminism a limit no one is supposed to cross. At one point in time, feminist women in particular were censored and harshly blamed if they ever talked "negatively" about feminism. To me feminism has nothing to do "woman" whatever that category may mean. Males and Men have capitalized on "feminism" more than did women. It would not be surprising to discover, as many women have recently acknowledged, that feminism serves the male dominance than any other women movement in history. To be a woman and write only about women (what is called academically gynocriticism) is one way to keep women in their "right" place. One should cringe when "distinction" is made; it is the moment of being "unique" and "singular" resembling no one and differing from no one. This is singularity of God that makes one tremble. Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:13:01 -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: <9c388081.3689bfe0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hmm, would I know I was being shot in the head to death? Would I know that the needle injected in me would kill me instantly? Probably not, if it happened fast. On the other hand, in fact some people do survive a bullet to the brain. IT IS PAINFUL! Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 12/23/98 6:49:21 AM Mountain Standard Time, > bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: > > >Well, I fear pain at those points, not death.> > > > -- mmmm, I'm afraid not. Being shot through the head is as close to painless > as possible -- one instant you exist, the next you don't. > > Or, to use another example, if you were helpless and someone approached you > with a hypo full of poison -- one that would kill you painlessly -- wouldn't > you be afraid? > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:33:55 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:18 AM 30/12/98 -0800, you wrote: >Is the old adge "write what you know" out of date? As a woman could I write >better women characters than Tolstoy? I think not, I'm not a writer. But >as a woman can I look at women characters written by men and see the kind of >women men want women to be rather than the kind of humans women are? Yes, >and I hate that. I want literature that shows people as they are, not as we >want them to be. In fiction, if we've set up a very far fetched premise >that's fine as long as the people in that scenario are complete and >believable. It's easy to think up a character and have her react in a way >that states your premise, but if you make a real character, one you've >written by examining your own soul then that allows you to examine that >premise and write about it more honestly. So because I'm not a man, I can't write an "honest" depiction of a character who happens to be male? I can't make him complex, or interesting, or three-dimensional, because I don't have a Y chromosome myself? I'm sorry, I refuse to accept that. In fact, it sounds like the same old "you're a woman, you don't know what men are thinking" argument. Fact is, what a lot of people, men and women, don't like to admit is that we're a lot alike, under the skin, with a lot of the same insecurities and emotions - does he like me? Does she like me? Does this outfit make me look fat? Am I getting wrinkles? Classifying all males under the all-inclusive banner of "MEN", and ascribing certain actions and mannerisms as exclusively male is just as bad as stereotyping females. Yes, a woman can write a convincing male character, simply by flexing her imagination. And yes, I know some men have a tendency to write female fantasies rather than female characters, but to generalise and say that ALL men do this is bull of the highest order. I've read "feminist" SF written by male authors who have produced very good characterisations of females. Do I particularly care that a man invented her? No. I care about the character, not the author. > I very much like full fledged women characters. I hate women writers to >"waste their time" and write yet more male characters. We have enough, in >my point of view. That's cold, I know, but I don't have all that much >interest in reading about men, especially about men the way we want them to >be instead of men the way they are. And yes, I do think if you're Asian >it's good to write about Asians, and if you're Black it's good to write >about Blacks, and if you have only one leg you would sure be able to tell me >more about it than a two legged person could, if you're introspective >enough. If, next month we find out that Brown Girl in the Ring was written >by a white Anglican bishop, I'll change my view on sticking with what one >knows. I fail to see how the identity of the author makes the slightest damned bit of difference in the depiction of a _fictional character_. By your logic, every story written should be an autobiography of the author; therefore, nobody should write horror, fantasy of sci-fi, because nobody here lives in the future, or in a land populated by elves and dragons, or has been posessed by a demon. I DO disagree with the maxim "write what you know"; it's putting a limit on something that should be limitless, ie, the imagination. JRR Tolkein was a university professor (and while I know that this author does get slagged off on this ultra-PC list a _lot_, I'm still going to use him as my example), so therefore, he should have written about life at a university. Yes, I'm sure that would be considered much more of a classic than "Lord of the Rings". How is writing a male character "wasting your time"? What the hell difference does a penis and a different set of chromosomes make if the character is interesting? Or do you seriously think that women can't identify with a male protagonist? Personally, I have no problem doing just this, as long as the character is worthy of my sympathy and time. Let's get one thing straight - a character is a character is a character. If you like him or her, you like him or her whether or not it's a man or a woman. Or black, or Asian, or one-legged - the _personality_ should be all that matters, not what's between their legs, or the color of their skin, or the shape of their eyes. You can't say that an author has no right to write about something that they personally are not - obviously, then, we can't write about people from other planets, can we? That would just make us traitors to humanity. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:50:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:06 PM 30/12/98 +0300, you wrote: >Santanico wrote: >So what is the difference between feminism and segregation? Do not give the high >ideals of equality, prosperity, and justice for all! As a political movement, >feminism is no better nor worse than any motivated movement; whoever says >otherwise will have justify her/his position. To be named as such imposes on >feminism a limit no one is supposed to cross. At one point in time, feminist >women in particular were censored and harshly blamed if they ever talked >"negatively" about feminism. To me feminism has nothing to do "woman" whatever >that category may mean. Males and Men have capitalized on "feminism" more than >did women. It would not be surprising to discover, as many women have recently >acknowledged, that feminism serves the male dominance than any other women >movement in history. To be a woman and write only about women (what is called >academically gynocriticism) is one way to keep women in their "right" place. > >One should cringe when "distinction" is made; it is the moment of being "unique" >and "singular" resembling no one and differing from no one. This is singularity >of God that makes one tremble. > >Maijan Much as I hate to agree with this hypothesis, in some respects I have to. I do find a lot of "establishment" feminists to be very censoring and hyper-critical, more of what other women do than what a lot of men do (not all, but still some). But I tend to reject these women, because to me they are not what the term "feminist" means. I do call myself a feminist, but I don't mean it in the same sense that the ones in favor of censorship do; I mean it, yes, in the "high ideals of equality, etc" sense, because that's just what I believe, and have always believed. I want a world where men and women accept their differences and realise their similarities. I want everyone to treat each other not as "Male" or "Female" in the stereotypical sense of the world; I want them to treat each other as other humans. Call me an idealist if you want, but I persist in believing that this is a possible dream. Let's face it, no matter how much we bitch and gripe, things are one Hell of a lot better than they once were; the fact that we made this much progress is indicative that things _can_ change. Though I have to confess I also dislike "feminists" who whine about how oppressed they are. I'm not oppressed by anyone, least of all Men (not _a_ man, mind you, but a big faceless collective), and frankly, I doubt anyone else on this list is. You all have jobs, seem educated, and none of you seem the type to let anyone oppress you. Yes, a lot of men have done terrible things to women in the past, and some men continue to do so, _but not all of them_. If you feel oppressed, either do something about it or be prepared to live with it. I realise I'll probably get flamed to a crisp for this, but I've got to say what I think. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:51:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:52 AM 30/12/98 +0100, you wrote: <> Bravo, Kristina. You continue to be one of this list's most eloquent speakers. Pardon the short email, Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:01:16 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT An interesting way to look at the difference between "male" and "female" violence is to do some reading about female criminals, especially murderers. You will find that they are capable of some despicable violence ... although it is much more likely to come out of their position of less overt power, ergo more subtle, manipulative, deceitful, cunning and ... rather frightening. The number of adult men and women who were physically and sexually abused by women is more prevalent than one might think, as well ... and the level of betrayal felt by the survivors goes much, much deeper, as does their confusion regarding self/other when the mother/child boundary is so incredibly violated. Most are abused by mothers, some by aunts, some by friends of the family ... and 70% of children who are sexually abused in day care are abused by women. It's not a pretty picture, and to important to be naive about. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net > In a message dated 12/30/98 12:48:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, > DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: > > >The male (gag) norm? The male (retch) NORM?> > > -- well, yeah, apart from some strictly sexual behaviors. > > Sexism isn't bad because women are morally superior to men; they aren't. > It's easy to be virtuous when you're powerless -- no opportunity to do > all the nasty things that require power. > > Sexism is bad because women are human beings with much the same range of > capacities as men, and hence gender discrimination is unjust (and > inefficient). > > Personally, I think predictions that the end of sexism will eliminate greed, > racism, war, violence, etc., etc., are so much pigeon dung, aka 'wishful > thinking'. > > Given the opportunity, women will use power pretty much as men have done... > and as those women who _did_ have "male" positions of power used it. > > I read a book called "Police Woman" some time ago; it was written in the > 1970's by a woman who was among the first female police officers in > Washington, DC. > > She pointed out that when she, and others like her, first hit the street > their less confrontational style of working was hailed as uniquely > "female". However, what the observers hadn't taken into account was that > she/they came from a very different class and social background from the > males they were working with, because before the ban on street work for > female officers was ended they were recruited as 'social workers with > guns'. > > When the recruiting standards were unified, and the women came from the same > working and lower-middle-class blue-collar environments as the men, much of > the difference evaporated. > > She illustrated this with an anecdote about a "man with a gun" call she and > two younger women officers went on. When they got there, she (a sergeant by > this time) began politely informing the man (a bartender) that he needed a > special license to carry a concealed firearm. > > After a moment the younger officer gently edged her aside, grabbed the guy by > the back of the head, bounced his face off the bar, stuck the gun in his nose > and said: "What the sarge is trying to say, ****le, is that if we catch you > on the street with this piece again, you gonna get busted." > > Dare to be monstrous. -- dorothy allison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:06:26 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: kelly boyle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Though I have to confess I also dislike "feminists" who whine about how >oppressed they are. I'm not oppressed by anyone, least of all Men (not _a_ >man, mind you, but a big faceless collective), and frankly, I doubt anyone >else on this list is. You all have jobs, seem educated, and none of you seem >the type to let anyone oppress you. Yes, a lot of men have done terrible >things to women in the past, and some men continue to do so, _but not all of >them_. If you feel oppressed, either do something about it or be prepared to >live with it. >Sant Thank you for the kind words on my comments. I do, to some extent, agree with the above, but I still feel oppressed by something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. One example is watching, for years, as male doctoral students get away with what gets me - and the other female students - a)an order to rewrite, and b) a dressing-down for not being humble enough. I don't want to blame the male students; it's not their fault, and at least they are happy. I can't really blame the professor, since change of professors (from a male to a female one) has made absolutely no difference. There is a clear injustice, there is no one to blame individually for it, so I consider it a system error. This is something I sometimes miss in SF: it seems to be easier to replace an oppressive environment with oppressive male characters, which is a different matter. Joanna Russ is the exception, I suppose, but so often the oppression of women is just embodied in a few obnoxious males, who are sometimes depicted in a fashion that makes you surprised they can speak above grunts. Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:07:03 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: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-12-30 07:04:16 EST, you write: << This is Chaucer: the Wife of Bath's Tale from the _Canterbury Tales_ (and it's Sir Gawain, not Arthur himself - he's sent on this pilgrimage for some offence--I think he may even have committed rape). He has to marry the witchlike figure who tells him the answer - she sets him one of those no-win choices (as I recollect, she can be ugly by day and beautiful by night, or vice versa... or maybe it's fair and false, or ugly and faithful). He says, which would you prefer, and wins the jackpot (i.e., he has given her _her_ will, not his). Lesley lesleyah@primex.co.uk >> Actually, in the Wife's tale it's an unnamed knight, not Gawaine--- Gawaine shows up in other medieval versions of this story, as does Arthur. In Chaucer, the knight is to be beheaded in punishment for the rape of a virgin, but for the intervention of Queen Guenevire & the "ladies of the court"; Arthur gives him to the Queen for judgement; she tells the knight that she will spare his life if he can answer the question, "What thing it is that wommen most desiren?" and gives him a year to answer. The answer is given to him by a woman, "old and foul and poor" in her own description, he encounters near the end of the year (he does ask many women during the year, as well as consulting tales about women in Ovid), in exchange for an unspecified promise. He tells the Queen "Wommen desire to have soverteinetee" in love and mastery over their husbands. It's an answer the Queen accepts; the ugly woman claims her promise then, telling the knight he must marry her. He does, although reluctantly. She presents a long argument in favor of her appearance on their wedding night, and then asks him whether he would choose to have her foul and old until she dies, but being to him a true humble wife; or young and fair and take his chances on her behavior. He tells her to make the choice (of her appearance) herself, that he puts himself under her wise governance. She then says that she will be both fair and good to him, and that by the time they leave bed in the morning she will be beautiful. In light of recent discussions of literary transvestism, you do have to wonder if a woman would have told the tale differently. Kathleen unovissf@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:37:57 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: Re: Recent reading Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Before Christmas I finished Terry Pratchett's new one, Carpe Jugulum (in Pratchett-ese, seize the jugular), a new Witches novel including lovely fat Agnes. Also, Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe's Triumph (Battle of Assaye) Still moving slowly through Angela Carter, Shaking a Leg (collected non- fiction). In my very small to-be-read pile (reduced to those I'm actually likely to open): Patrick O'Brian, The Hundred Days, that I've been saving to savor page by lovely page until today. Sylvia Townsend Warner, Scenes of Childhood. David Weber, On Basilisk Station (tried three times & tossed it aside; giving it one more chance, eventually) Non-recreational reading for the past three months has been on Buddhism and "medieval" Buddhist art of China and Japan; chanoyu (tea ceremony); Ernest bloody Fenellosa; Chinese ink-painting; Tantric Buddhism; and Ukiyo/ukiyo-e. I'm about to index a book (to be published this summer) on, among other things, 19th-century ideas on subjectivity in religion (removing it from an institutionalized to a personal realm), and secularity in artistic representation of religious themes--- through Sargent's mural cycle at the Boston Public Library. Extremely interesting in terms of the upcoming big Sargent retrospectives & what they're leaving out. Apologies for jumping in late on this thread--- I've been too swamped with a work emergency and trying to compensate via mail for a lost family Christmas to even read posts for the past two weeks and more. Kathleen unovissf@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:23:05 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:06 PM 30/12/98 +0100, you wrote: >Thank you for the kind words on my comments. >I do, to some extent, agree with the above, but I still feel oppressed by >something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. One example is >watching, for years, as male doctoral students get away with what gets me - >and the other female students - a)an order to rewrite, and b) a >dressing-down for not being humble enough. I don't want to blame the male >students; it's not their fault, and at least they are happy. I can't really >blame the professor, since change of professors (from a male to a female >one) has made absolutely no difference. There is a clear injustice, there >is no one to blame individually for it, so I consider it a system error. Well, maybe I should've been a little clearer. I've got no problem with women (or men, for that matter) offering complaints when there is a real injustice being perpetrated; it's when people start saying things like "I didn't get that job because I'm a woman", not even considering that they might not have gotten it because they simply weren't the right person for the job, that I get peeved. I _am_ against "victim feminism", as in women who seem to actually like living in a state of paranoia and hyper-sensitivity, and refuse to believe that they are not in fact helplessly living under The Patriarchy's (I really hate that word, but nothing else seems to fit) boot heel. Thankfully, I haven't met all that many women like this, but a few is quite enough. >This is something I sometimes miss in SF: it seems to be easier to replace >an oppressive environment with oppressive male characters, which is a >different matter. Joanna Russ is the exception, I suppose, but so often the >oppression of women is just embodied in a few obnoxious males, who are >sometimes depicted in a fashion that makes you surprised they can speak >above grunts. Agreed. Thing is, in fiction it's easy to fall into the trap of portraying a state of mind or an injustice by having one or two charactersbe "representatives" of it - an ultra-sexist male, an ultra-enlightened female etc. This doesn't so much lead to gender stereotyping, I believe, as it leads to Stock Character Syndrome (not the same as an archetype, though treading a fine line), which is boring and repetitive. Authors do this because it's easier to have one character stand for an entire belief system than it is to portray that entire belief system; it also makes it a hell of a lot easier for the hero to kick the crap out of the other guy's argument. There's a great phrase for what I mean: "paper tigers". Basically, it's enemies who have pathetically easy arguments to knock down. Isn't it more chilling to write a male character (if a character or characters has to stand in for a belief system at all) whose sexism is so deep-rooted that he's either developed an entire intricate system of justification to rationalise it to himself, or doesn't even consciously know he believes it, than it is to write some Gor refugee who seems to subscribe to the Me Tarzan You Jane School of Chauvinism? Yes, it's often tough to get into the mind of someone like that, but the results do usually pay off: ie, you've got a character the audience has _real_ reason to hate. But then, complex characterisation is always, IMO, an essential to fiction; without it, well, you've got the Gor novels in a nutshell (dear God, please let me meet John Norman in a dark alley, just _once_...) Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:20:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: opression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I agree with Kristina - it's not "opression" in the grand, dramatic sense, but when a male does the same job and gets paid more for it, it's similar to the example put forward - it's not that man's fault, and it's not even the fault of the boss, usually; it is more like a system error that assumes he's worth more because he's more likely to be supporting more than just himself, and she's more likely to quit to have kids. I see this in big corporations all the time; with very few exceptions, the only women who manage more than one level of employees are those with no families, usually not even boyfriends. That's not their fault; it's not even the fault of the other women who choose family over advancement at work; it's the fault of a system that can only reward for dedication to the exclusion of all else. For my own self, that's fine; even if I could have both, I wouldn't want to be upper management; the money is not that big of an incentive (and I suspect that part of why it doesn't change is because there are lots of women who feel the way I do). And, in a global sense, the assumptions are starting to change, but it's slow. -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: kelly boyle [SMTP:boyle@ALGONET.SE] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 7:06 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: > > >Though I have to confess I also dislike "feminists" who whine about how > >oppressed they are. I'm not oppressed by anyone, least of all Men (not > _a_ > >man, mind you, but a big faceless collective), and frankly, I doubt > anyone > >else on this list is. You all have jobs, seem educated, and none of you > seem > >the type to let anyone oppress you. Yes, a lot of men have done terrible > >things to women in the past, and some men continue to do so, _but not all > of > >them_. If you feel oppressed, either do something about it or be prepared > to > >live with it. > > >Sant > > Thank you for the kind words on my comments. > I do, to some extent, agree with the above, but I still feel oppressed by > something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. One example is > watching, for years, as male doctoral students get away with what gets me > - > and the other female students - a)an order to rewrite, and b) a > dressing-down for not being humble enough. I don't want to blame the male > students; it's not their fault, and at least they are happy. I can't > really > blame the professor, since change of professors (from a male to a female > one) has made absolutely no difference. There is a clear injustice, there > is no one to blame individually for it, so I consider it a system error. > > This is something I sometimes miss in SF: it seems to be easier to replace > an oppressive environment with oppressive male characters, which is a > different matter. Joanna Russ is the exception, I suppose, but so often > the > oppression of women is just embodied in a few obnoxious males, who are > sometimes depicted in a fashion that makes you surprised they can speak > above grunts. > Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:37:47 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There's a great phrase for what I mean: "paper tigers". Basically, it's > enemies who have pathetically easy arguments to knock down. Isn't it more > chilling to write a male character (if a character or characters has to > stand in for a belief system at all) whose sexism is so deep-rooted that > he's either developed an entire intricate system of justification to > rationalise it to himself, or doesn't even consciously know he believes it, > than it is to write some Gor refugee who seems to subscribe to the Me Tarzan > You Jane School of Chauvinism? Yes, it's often tough to get into the mind of > someone like that, but the results do usually pay off: ie, you've got a > character the audience has _real_ reason to hate. But then, complex > characterisation is always, IMO, an essential to fiction; without it, well, > you've got the Gor novels in a nutshell (dear God, please let me meet John > Norman in a dark alley, just _once_...) > > Sant. I feel that Russ succeeds at least frequently; I won't get on the subject of _The Female Man_ quite yet, since I gather we are discussing it in February, but the scene where Jael kills a man always struck me as both horrifying and deeply satisfactory - you are aware of, and pity, his inability to see the danger, and still you feel he gets what's coming to him... He is a product of his environment but he is so disgusting. I have read a few books that managed without complex characterisations, but they tend to be idea novels, which is a genre I dislike (never could read Dickens, which is a little tricky when you teach English Literature for a living). At least I think that SF and fantasy is mostly past the stage where cute gadgets/elves, take your pick, are considered adequate replacements for things like characters and plot. Speaking of authors we want to meet in dark alleys, ever read Stephen Lawhead? I made a Freudian slip once in referring to _Grail_ as his last novel. He comments that one woman character is the essence of woman: "bright mystery, clothed in beauty." Excuse me? I am a bright mystery clothed in beauty or I am not a woman? I'll have androgyny, to go, please. Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:47:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Writing what you know Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I really have to agree with Santanico. There's value in writing about women for the sake of creating more female characters to even out the balance, so to speak. But men aren't so foreign that a good female writer can't put herself in a man's head for a while (and vice versa). It may be more challenging to cross cultural lines....but isn't that what research is for? How can a modern day writer create a futuristic world if they only write what they know? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:50:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "i.e. isn't a lot of male behaviour (not just purely on the sexual level) as 'pathological' as 'femininity' as conventionally assigned?" I think so. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:52:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Women Writing Male Protagonists In-Reply-To: <199812301050.EAA65584@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Doesn't anyone read medieval Arthurian stories anymore? There is the story >where Arthur travels all over the world to find out what women want, and >finally finds one who tells him (when he eventually has the sense to ask a >woman) that women want their own way. I suppose literature was not one of >Freud's strong points. > >Kristina Hildebrand I love that story. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:44:41 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >In light of recent discussions of literary transvestism, you do have to wonder >if a woman would have told the tale differently. This is already a multilayered version of literary transvestism: Chaucer is telling the tale 'as' the Wife of Bath, who is telling it 'about' the knight (rather than the point of view of the woman)... Does Christine de Pisan have any version of this tale anywhere (as the only medieval woman writer on secular subjects I can think of offhand)? Lesley lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:41:58 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: 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 12/30/98 12:29:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Sexism isn't bad because women are morally superior to men; they aren't. It's easy to be virtuous when you're powerless -- no opportunity to do all the nasty things that require power. >> One of the things that really worries me is the normalization of male misbehavior and the assumption that male misbehavior is just human behavior and is the low level to which we all will drop if just given a chance. I am also concerned about the idea that Power is some kind of outside controller of human behavior. If that were true, we would not have all the examples, in other cultures, other times, and even among the people we know...of other behaviors and motivators. Well...if it were true, then it seems to me feminism is a ghost, or worse, because even a ghost was once alive. I went to college (sciences) in the late sixties where I ran head on into "male" culture and norms. I did what 'blending in' I had to for survival, but never gave up my own morality or norms. Enough women did that so that now OUR norms and moralities are having an effect on the nature and direction and understanding of the scientific process. I was also a mechanic for awhile and saw a lot of women holding on to their better paying jobs but not buying in to the ultimately silly dog-eat- dog, whose on first male 'norms'. I believe that our current culture stops us ALL from being as human as we are capable of, but it deflects males more than females. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:44:38 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: feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 3:41:25 AM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: << Steve, this is really way out of line. -- mmm, saying that culture and social class are as important/more important than gender in determining behavior is out of line? Why, exactly? I'd have thought that was a truism. Actually, one of the great weaknesses of most SF and fantasy is precisely that the aliens in them are members of the good gray North American bourgeoise in alien suits (or fur kilts, in the case of the fantasy). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:57:52 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*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 3:46:34 AM Mountain Standard Time, lesleyah@PRIMEX.CO.UK writes: >This supposes a) that the way men behave in a sexually inegalitarian society which gives them a certain degree of privilege (depending on class, income, etc etc) but also generates lots of anxieties about 'appropriate' male behaviour, is an enduring norm which would survive into a more egalitarian society -- we were talking about gender inequalities _pur sang_, not egalitarianism in general. The two have no necessary connection. There is no reason to believe that eliminating gender discrimination will make society one iota less inegalitarian in other respects. Quite possibly it will increase class distinctions -- there's already evidence that the changes in marriage patterns of the last generation or two have had precisely that effect. Opening the competitive process to more people makes the process more competitive by definition; which puts a still greater premium on aggressive ruthlessness among the successful. >i.e. isn't a lot of male behaviour (not just purely on the sexual level) as 'pathological' as 'femininity' as conventionally assigned? -- some is, some isn't. Oppressed groups are generally obsessed with and fixated on their oppressors, for obvious reasons. One characteristic error they make is to assume that the reverse holds true, when in fact ignorant indifference is more common. That is to say, one of the perks of power is the opportunity to ignore the people who have less of it. Much 'male' behavior has nothing to do with women, or with proving they're not 'effeminate', etc.; it's just functional in competitive settings. The situation/environment determines the behavior, not some "essential" inner nature. >b) that there are no other ways, not necessarily to do with gender, to transform relations of power within society -- that's another question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:57:57 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 12/30/98 3:59:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: << whether it is the masculine norm or the feminine norm. >> But a 'norm' is not a 'truth'. After all, there is the masculine 'norm' of modern America, of the various native tribes prior to European invasion, the masculine 'norms' of Italy, Polynesia, Crete, TV, sundry fiction genres, one's elder brother, wolves, bluebirds, and the characters in the endless Star Trek incarnations. What about...values? Not the values and norms we have from having been born at a certain place and time and as a certain species, but values we CHOOSE to possess? What about norms that are embedded in biology, such as the development of an anatomically complete and active brain? I would hardly think there would be disagreement there.... Not norms with exclusions and punishments (goodness, sounds like patriarchy) but values, experiences and behaviors based on fully developed neuronal capacities and somatic health???? Do we need to go off line on this? I don't want to start the off-topic concerns again.... Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:58:34 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*] Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 3:51:04 AM Mountain Standard Time, boyle@ALGONET.SE writes: >Aren't there rather a lot of concerns, experiences, and questions that touch us equally whether we are men or women?> -- quite true. We are not defined by our plumbing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:09:17 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*] Women Writing Male Protagonists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 12:04:16 PM, Lesley wrote: << or maybe it's fair and false, or ugly and faithful)>> think this is it. phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:39:49 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Women Writing Male Protagonists In-Reply-To: <199812301333.HAA79544@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Santanico wrote: >snip< > >Is the old adge "write what you know" out of date? > > >snip again< > > I fail to see how the identity of the author makes the slightest damned bit > of difference in the depiction of a _fictional character_. > Sant. > Maybe it isn't that men aren't capable of writing authentic female characters, or that women aren't capable of writing authentic male characters, etc., but that everyone writes from the experience she/he knows. For all but the extraordinary few, I think that knowledge comes from all the lived in nooks and crannies of the social place you are assigned to because of your body (or to a less fixed extent, by wealth, religion, etc.). It comes from all the ways you unconsciously and consciously "know" you can act, and from the consequences that all your actions will predictably have, and this knowledge is learned over a lifetime. You can observe other people, but the tiny, logical details that make the great characters believable will come first from the life you know best. To put yourself in someone else's place takes first of all, a knowledge of that place, and then a willingness to dismantle the predjudices that keep a person from honestly imagining reasonable actions and reactions. Looks pretty difficult from this mere reader's point of view. I think another factor in writing believable characters is that members of non-dominant groups must, for their survival, know the way that dominant groups view the world: the "out" groups live within the model the powerful impose on their common world, and must be able to predict the behavior of the more powerful. Needless to say, the necessity of this knowledge is not reciprocal; indeed, *not* knowing "how the other half lives" is one of the most common ways of showing disrespect for another group. Given this, given that women are saturated daily with men's view of the world, but that the reverse is not true, I think that male characters created by women would be more believable than the other way around. Then there was that famous study in the U.S. in the late 1960's that showed that the lists mental health professionals made of the traits for masculinity and for a mentally healthy adult were almost identical, but those for femininity not only differed from a mentally healthy adult, but were considered pathological. Within the context of most women's lives, those "traits" made sense, but an outside point of view, without experience and (willfully?) ignorant of the contstraints, rewards, etc., came up with some pretty wierd reasons to account for the difference. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:42:13 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 9:23:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: >I do, to some extent, agree with the above, but I still feel oppressed by something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. -- I think it's indisputable that women still suffer from considerable disadvantages due solely to their gender. Much progress has been made, but much remains to be done. >but so often the oppression of women is just embodied in a few obnoxious males, who are sometimes depicted in a fashion that makes you surprised they can speak above grunts. -- I run into that sort of guy myself, now and then... 8-). 'tis my private conviction that the human race survives only because women have terrible taste in men. >Basically, it's enemies who have pathetically easy arguments to knock down. -- very good point from a writerly p.o.v. As Thomas Jefferson said, it is extremely difficult to avoid despising those with whom we profoundly disagree. (Eg., I find myself amazed that X is able to chew gum and walk at the same time, even though he's a Republican.) This leads to stereotyping. Even the most loathsome character is a complex universe unto him/herself. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 22:43:18 +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: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 12/30/98 3:59:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, > ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: > > << whether it is the masculine norm or the feminine > norm. >> > > But a 'norm' is not a 'truth'. After all, there is the masculine 'norm' of > modern America, of the various native tribes prior to European invasion, the > masculine 'norms' of Italy, Polynesia, Crete, TV, sundry fiction genres, one's > elder brother, wolves, bluebirds, and the characters in the endless Star Trek > incarnations. > > What about...values? Not the values and norms we have from having been born > at a certain place and time and as a certain species, but values we CHOOSE to > possess? What about norms that are embedded in biology, such as the > development of an anatomically complete and active brain? I would hardly > think there would be disagreement there.... > > Not norms with exclusions and punishments (goodness, sounds like patriarchy) > but values, experiences and behaviors based on fully developed neuronal > capacities and somatic health???? > > Do we need to go off line on this? I don't want to start the off-topic > concerns again.... > Madrone I do not think we are in disagreement; something seems to be missing somewhere. for me "truth" is as good as "norm" as good as "value." I do not have the time now, but I will sure come back to this. Have a good time. maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:55:44 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*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 11:42:46 AM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >I am also concerned about the idea that Power is some kind of outside controller of human behavior. -- one among many. You'll never eliminate power-lust from human affairs, any more than you'll eliminate altruism. In fact, like most dualities they're dependent on each other. Eg., you couldn't have large-scale war without selfless idealism and _bruderschaft_, which are the emotional drivers which make combat possible. Power is a positional good; the more you have, the less everyone else has. In a setting where you have to actively go out and seek it, a certain personality-type will end up with the power. Eg., Margaret Thatcher. I'm never going to be rich, for instance, because while I'd like to have lots of money, I simply don't want it enough to become a monomaniac about it; other things are more important to me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:33:16 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: 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 12/30/98 11:58:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Power is a positional good; the more you have, the less everyone else has. In a setting where you have to actively go out and seek it, a certain personality-type will end up with the power. E >> Well. That is ONE definition from a particular culture. You can be a Carnegie, bringing in the militia to shoot at your workers and keeping them in despicable conditions or you can be a Hershey, building schools and a clean town and making sure the people who work for you have a living wage. Power does not inevitably lead to oppression, nor is it universally considered to be a zero-sum phenomena. While I agree that a certain personality type (almost always male) will end up with the kind of power you describe, I would go further to say that it is not in any way a healthy personality type. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:45:03 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Seren Subject: Re: Le Guin, Gender and Gender Relations In-Reply-To: <3689122C.754A@utica.ucsu.edu> from "Larisa John" at Dec 29, 98 12:32:28 pm Content-Type: text Larisa John wrote > A couple people have mentioned Le Guin's characters in relation to the > use of female protagonists and depictions of gender relations. I would > suggest that they may wish to read Le Guin's essays in "The Language of > the Night : Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction" (NY, Putnam, 1979) > especially "Is gender necessary?". > I'd suggest people might want to read the annotated version of "Is Gender Necessary?" printed in "Dancing at the Edge of the World". The revisions make a *big* difference to the essay (they're printed in bracketed italics alongside the original text, so you can still see what she originally wrote), as she changed her mind completely about a number of statements in between the 1976 and 1987 versions (and may have again, but I wouldn't know about that). _Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on words, women, places_ is currently available from Amazon, at about $10 or so. I'd *strongly* recommend it - actually, is it possible to nominate non-fiction for the Book Discussion Group? (Haven't read Language of the Night, yet). I'd also recommend _The Fisherwoman's Daughter_, one of the essays in DatEotW - there's a good bit in there relevant to the discussion about male protagonists ... I'll try to find some quotes when I'm a little less tired! > Also, no one mentioned "Tehanu" which is the 4th in the Earthsea > series. This book looks directly at women's lives and powers (both > magical and mundane) in the world of Earthsea. I've got to second this recommendation too...good point Larisa. seren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:50:57 -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: Subtle Sexism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 16:06:26 +0100 on 30 Dec 1998, Kristina Hildebrand wrote: > [...] I still feel oppressed by > something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. One example is > watching, for years, as male doctoral students get away with what gets > me - and the other female students - a)an order to rewrite, and b) a > dressing-down for not being humble enough. I don't want to blame the > male students; it's not their fault, and at least they are happy. I > can't really blame the professor, since change of professors (from a > male to a female one) has made absolutely no difference. There is a > clear injustice, there is no one to blame individually for it, so I > consider it a system error. Hmmm... why can't you blame both of them? Just because the new professor is a woman doesn't mean she is exempt from charges of sexism. Blame doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing affair either. Society-wide oppressions are built from the large and small actions of real people. Not every sexist person will be so obvious as to tell a woman that she belongs in the kitchen, not in the workforce; many will discriminate in an inobvious, perhaps inadvertant way that can nevertheless be challenged in various ways by those who notice it. IMO, to wave it away as "system error" concedes defeat prematurely. > This is something I sometimes miss in SF: it seems to be easier to > replace an oppressive environment with oppressive male characters, > which is a different matter. Joanna Russ is the exception, I suppose, > but so often the oppression of women is just embodied in a few > obnoxious males, who are sometimes depicted in a fashion that makes > you surprised they can speak above grunts. Yes, I find that irritating as well. But there are plenty of authors besides Russ who rise above such stereotyping. Le Guin (with a few notable exceptions) is quite good. Suzy McKee Charnas is very good. Once I have time to think I can come up with plenty more... -- 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: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:40:09 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft" Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-12-30 02:53:14 EST, you write: << Because if sexism is genetic, nothing can be done about it. >> Except, perhaps, to find a way to "correct" this obviously flawed gene. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:34:21 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: joining in temporarily Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Maryelizabeth (hi, Maryelizabeth!) told me that this list would be discussing my novel _Brown Girl in the Ring_ early this year. She asked if I'd like to be present for the discussion. So here, with one reservation, I am. My reservation is that I have a scant month before my next mss. _Midnight Robber_ is due at the publisher, and I'm still writing furiously. I shouldn't have time for breakfast, much less e-mail. So I'll not be able to do a lot of posting, but I'll be taking part as I can. -nalo hopkinson http://www.sff.net/people/nalo/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:53:30 +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: Women Writing Male Protagonists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Santanico wrote: > Call me an idealist if you want, but I persist in believing that this is a > possible dream. Let's face it, no matter how much we bitch and gripe, things are > one Hell of a lot better than they once were; the fact that we made this much > progress is indicative that things _can_ change. Yes, they are! But is this situation or progress the result of "Feminist" movements or to the investment in the issue by the male dominated culture; the culture one respondent accurately identified as patriarchical. The ideals in which you said you believe are what you say they are: ideals. We all love equality, etc... The problem with ideals is that they eventually lead to oppression: from Plato to the Romatics to the new World Order. Each and every new ideology appeals to these ideals. I do not think anyone will fault you for believing in these; many many people do (myself included). However, as you said, we should not be naive about a lot of things, particularly ideals. As for the statement that things are one Hell of a lot better, I do have serious doubts. I think for every period, there are things that get accepted as "givens." That later Generations find fault with them is not pertinent to them but rather part of the ideology of the newer generation. How could it be explained that the witch-trial in Salem was accepted, but now seems pizzare? Why was MaCarthyism acceptable in the 40s and 50s that Arthur Miller had to write the Crucible to remind people of the witch-trial? These events have always been carried through in the name of ideals. I am sure there are enough instances related to "feminism." "The Establishment" institutes what counts as acceptable and what does not: it is taught in schools and at home; and we tend to think that we are making choices when actually we are indoctrinated into what we believe. > If you feel oppressed, either do something about it or be prepared to > live with it. For myself, I probably would be the last to be oppressed; gender-wise, I am on the so-called "oppressing" side. > I realise I'll probably get flamed to a crisp for this, but I've got to say > what I think. Does not that say enough about the feminist politics that advocates equality and the democratic ideals such as one "man" one "vote" and freedom of expression? At the end, thank you for your valuable remarks. Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:14:08 +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: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 12/30/98 3:59:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, > ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: > > << whether it is the masculine norm or the feminine > norm. >> > > But a 'norm' is not a 'truth'. After all, there is the masculine 'norm' of > modern America, of the various native tribes prior to European invasion, the > masculine 'norms' of Italy, Polynesia, Crete, TV, sundry fiction genres, one's > elder brother, wolves, bluebirds, and the characters in the endless Star Trek > incarnations. Do you think that "truth" is something prior to the "norm" or even other than the "norm"? If this is the case, then we probably have to decide what "truth" is. Do not we have very many kinds of truths, in fact as many as there are norms. > What about...values? Not the values and norms we have from having been born > at a certain place and time and as a certain species, but values we CHOOSE to > possess? My problem is with this myth of "free choice or will." Your choices are as good/bad as the politics that motivate them. They are never neutral or innocent, but oriented, value laden, exactly as the choices any of us will make. > What about norms that are embedded in biology, such as the > development of an anatomically complete and active brain? I would hardly > think there would be disagreement there.... I do not think I have got your full meaning. Are you saying there are values that one is anatomically born with? This would certainly revolution our limited thinking and mental capacity. Biotechnology is perhaps a good place to start on this matter just to see the relation between the machine and what we call the "anatomically complete and active brain" as if the words "complete and active" have nothing in them that already prescribe what we expect from "brain." If you are referring to the biological patterns (norms), then these have no value in them: we impose the values (i.e., norms). > Not norms with exclusions and punishments (goodness, sounds like patriarchy) > but values, experiences and behaviors based on fully developed neuronal > capacities and somatic health???? I do not agree that there are "values" genetically determined, be they somatic or cerebral. The functions of the body will carry on whether they are positively or negatively identified. Now to equate values with experiences and behaviors is an untenable jump of faith. See, the developed and underdeveloped "neuronal" capacity and somatic health is an old trick to keep certain population locked up (one should consult Foucault's the Birth of the Clinic or the History of Madness, or for that matter, The History of Sexuality). > Do we need to go off line on this? I don't want to start the off-topic > concerns again.... I don't know; of or on line suits the same. Best wishes Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 19:52:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cory Marshall Organization: Small Business Administration Subject: GATE TO WOMEN'S COUNTRY Content-Type: text TO: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU "S> More in the nature of "reactionary, fascistic, and defeatist", in fact. "S> Because if sexism is genetic, nothing can be done about it. if somebody had sexism or any other bias, that was caused genetic predispotion, by gen theropy and gentic enginearing before the person is born cold lead a totle unbiased life. And there cold be one. Given darwins evalotion of survivle of the strongest and the hunter/gatherer theory's of early man kind then the female stay "home" prtecting the kids while the male goes out and hunts. If the male got killed the children had a better chance of staying alive, continuing the gentic trate to the next generation. But in todays world that possible gentic trate is no longer needed, today the mind of a person means more to your health and a continued family tree. Now that i am on the topic of genetics and evolution, and one not to waste bandwidth *smirk*. I have a personal belief that we as a race are have or are cloose to removing are selves from evolution and sooner or later we are going to be out evolved by something, killer virus that no drug can attack with out killing the person. And the only wy to ensure are continued existence is to change are selves to stay completive on a gentic level. Cory Marshall Cory.Marshall@SBAONLINE.GOV shadow@bbs.moonstar.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:55:57 +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*] Subtle Sexism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hmmm... why can't you blame both of them? Just because the new professor > is a woman doesn't mean she is exempt from charges of sexism. > > Blame doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing affair either. Society-wide > oppressions are built from the large and small actions of real people. > Not every sexist person will be so obvious as to tell a woman that she > belongs in the kitchen, not in the workforce; many will discriminate in > an inobvious, perhaps inadvertant way that can nevertheless be > challenged in various ways by those who notice it. IMO, to wave it away > as "system error" concedes defeat prematurely. Blame is not a zero-sum game, I agree. What I mean is that while the participants in this oppression can certainly be requested to do something about it, they did not start it. They are simply being part of it, and in some cases become victims to it (including the male students, who sometimes write bad dissertations without being told about it until the examination...). The fact that the gender of the professor did not make a difference to the situation shows, I think, that it is not personal - a professor with a grudge or who is simply a male chauvinist can create the situation, but were that the case it would have gone away once he retired: in fact, it got worse. It is a system error in the sense that the system must be changed, not just the people in it (though of course they are the ones who can change it); I don't think that is conceding defeat - that would imply that the system is impossible to change, and I don't believe that. I do believe that it must be changed, and that individual change might be part of the answer but will not be the whole answer. Incidentally, I would not exempt anyone from sexism on the basis of gender: in so far as harassment of women for real or imagined sexual sins goes, I think women are the main perpetraters. > Yes, I find that irritating as well. But there are plenty of authors > besides Russ who rise above such stereotyping. Le Guin (with a few > notable exceptions) is quite good. Suzy McKee Charnas is very good. Once > I have time to think I can come up with plenty more... > If you do, would you send me a list? I have read McKee Charnas but only _Walk to the End of the World_ and _Motherlines_, and I have, of course, read LeGuin; I am teaching _The Left Hand of Darkness_ this spring and that ought to be interesting.... Kristina boyle@algonet.se ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:42:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Gate To Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:40 PM 30/12/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-12-30 02:53:14 EST, you write: > ><< Because if sexism is genetic, nothing can be done about it. > > >> > Except, perhaps, to find a way to "correct" this obviously flawed gene. Hands up all in favor of letting scientists monkey around with humans' genes? Thought not. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:57:54 -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: oppression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kristina wrote, in part: "... I still feel oppressed by something I call patriarchy, for lack of a better word. One example is watching, for years, as male doctoral students get away with what gets me- and the other female students - a)an order to rewrite, and b) a dressing-down for not being humble enough. I don't want to blame the male students; it's not their fault, and at least they are happy. I can't really blame the professor, since change of professors (from a male to a female one) has made absolutely no difference. There is a clear injustice, there is no one to blame individually for it, so I consider it a system error." Sandy responded, in part: "I agree with Kristina - it's not "opression" in the grand, dramatic sense, but when a male does the same job and gets paid more for it, it's similar to the example put forward - it's not that man's fault, and it's not even the fault of the boss, usually; it is more like a system error that assumes he's worth more because he's more likely to be supporting more than just himself, and she's more likely to quit to have kids. I see this in big corporations all the time; with very few exceptions, the only women who manage more than one level of employees are those with no families, usually not even boyfriends. That's not their fault; it's not even the fault of the other women who choose family over advancement at work; it's the fault of a system that can only reward for dedication to the exclusion of all else." I know what you both are saying about the "system error". I have first-hand experience of it too and I don't disagree that it's difficult and sometimes pointless to attempt to place blame, but this passing the buck troubles me. The system, after all, is not something outside us, we are part of it, and each person is responsible for his or her choice. If we just say it's nobody's fault, then where is accountability? responsibility? where is the power to actually choose something different? To give an example from feminist sci-fi, Starhawk addresses this kind of thinking in _The Fifth Sacred Thing_. She describes a military mentality of unquestioning obedience for soldiers who don't consider themeselves responsible for the people who they kill. They have the old "if I don't do it, somebody else will" mentality, coupled with the fear that "if I don't do it (kill), then the next guy will just kill me." But the point is made that no one can ever know or take responsibilty for what the other person will do, but that we must be accountable for what we ourselves choose to do, because our choices ineviatably combine with others to make that "system error." I am also reminded of Marge Piercy's _Woman on the Edge of Time_ in which the main character comes to realize that, even under the most oppressive circumstances - that of a latina in a mental institution, forced to undergo brain surgery against her own will- she can still withhold her allegiance from those who manipulate her. The "system error" finds its strength when each person making a decision abdicates their responsibilty for it. Perhaps they think they are just acting on well-recieved tradition and precedent- they probably are. It takes time and energy to see the history and trajectory of the choices we habitually make. It takes courage and intelligence and often a dose of complete foolishness to step off the track that others have laid for us, especially since we are moving like a freight train forward with the momentum of all that has come before. But if anything is going to change every person has to acknowledge that their choices have an impact, and that denying this is to choose by default, usually to side with the force of habit, tradition, ...maybe even "patriarchy". There _are_ individuals responsible for the injustices in the examples you both give. Why should the professor, regardless of sex, not be held accountable for treating students unfairly? Why should the individuals who made the decision to reward employees financially based on their sex or their willingness to be workaholics not be held accountable for that choice (or, more likely, that long string of choices?). Just had to add my two cents, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:20:28 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Subject: Re: SV: [*FSFFU*] feminist utopias (was OT, etc) In-Reply-To: <845a65bd.368a73f6@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > In a message dated 12/30/98 12:29:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, > JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: > > << Sexism isn't bad because women are morally superior to men; they aren't. > It's > easy to be virtuous when you're powerless -- no opportunity to do all the > nasty things that require power. > >> > > One of the things that really worries me is the normalization of male > misbehavior and the assumption that male misbehavior is just human behavior > and is the low level to which we all will drop if just given a chance. I am > also concerned about the idea that Power is some kind of outside controller of > human behavior. > > If that were true, we would not have all the examples, in other cultures, > other times, and even among the people we know...of other behaviors and > motivators. > > Well...if it were true, then it seems to me feminism is a ghost, or worse, > because even a ghost was once alive. I went to college (sciences) in the late > sixties where I ran head on into "male" culture and norms. I did what > 'blending in' I had to for survival, but never gave up my own morality or > norms. Enough women did that so that now OUR norms and moralities are having > an effect on the nature and direction and understanding of the scientific > process. I was also a mechanic for awhile and saw a lot of women holding on > to their better paying jobs but not buying in to the ultimately silly dog-eat- > dog, whose on first male 'norms'. > > I believe that our current culture stops us ALL from being as human as we are > capable of, but it deflects males more than females. > > Madrone > > Let me just also say that I just finished reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners" which is not SF or fantasy, unfortunately, but I ran across something I was not expecting to find. It appears that the female guards who were placed in charge of the Jewish prisoners were far more sadistically vicious and more often and without exception than the male guards, though they were cruel as well. The point of the book is that there is more to what happened during the holocaust than "following orders," (and you can find my review on amazon.com), and the author makes his point by example after example of anecdotes where there were no orders nor rhyme nor reason and even with orders to the contrary, the Germans had been conditioned to view their Jewish prisoners as subhuman, and a satanic danger to their Fatherland, with daily commentary in their media that had existed for years. Men, women and children were sadistically cruel to the Jews, whether they were Nazis, soldiers or not. They were crueler to their Jewish prisoners than to any other kind of prisoner. But where there might have been an exception here and there among the men, there was absolutely none whatsoever among the women. They were more vicious without exception. It may be because they were coming from a position of less power that they were then able to take all that out on the most powerless victim of all with the only empowerment they knew, I don't know. But I can tell you that I am constistently amazed at the level of cruelty I have experienced first hand from women ... and there is nothing more cruel than the cruelty that comes from "feminist" women ... or women who claim to be. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net Dare to be monstrous. -- dorothy allison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:20:28 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Subject: Feminist Utopias (was OT, etc.) In-Reply-To: <5324d744.368a7c0a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > In a message dated 12/30/98 6:56:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > chuard@earthlink.net writes: > > << and 70% of children who are sexually abused in day care are abused by > women. It's not a pretty > picture, and to important to be naive about. >> > > > Sorry, folks, don't mean to be so chatty this morning but can't let this one > go. 80-95% of the violent crimes are committed by men. The numbers are > there, and have been for a very long time. Numbers can be easily > misunderstood. For instance, given that 70% of children abused in day care > are abused by women...What percentage of children are abused, nation wide? > How many of them are abused by men in private homes? > > I just don't understand why , with the overwhelming preponderance of violent > crimes clearly being committed by men, there seems to be a need to say "women > do it too" when, by the numbers, very very few actually do. Often, women who > kill men do so after years of abuse. > > Madrone > > This is not about "women do it too" it's about reframing the issue. It is not that men are the abusers. It is that women are the abused. It is women that are targeted, by men *and* women, and it is not very few who actually do. Having met too many survivors of abuse by women and seeing how minimized and marginalized they feel, as if the violence that women do is somehow less important than the violence that men do, is sexism and a violence of its own. We don't expect women to be as abusive as they can be, and for that reason the betrayal runs deep. They are not counted, they are not caught, they are not taken seriously ... except by their victims, who are very, very often other women, because the reality is, (and I refuse to beat this into the ground for people who just don't want to hear it) it is not about men. It is about how the we all, as part of a patriarchal culture, have been conditioned to target women and others with less power. I will no longer allow the survivors I have known and worked with over the years to be minimized and marginalized by a political agenda that has nothing to do with healing. Now this really is off topic, except for the political agenda I saw in GTWC that resonated loud and clear with my own experience, and made me very uncomfortable. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net Dare to be monstrous. -- dorothy allison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 22:22:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: SV: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:37 PM 30/12/98 +0100, you wrote: >I feel that Russ succeeds at least frequently; I won't get on the subject >of _The Female Man_ quite yet, since I gather we are discussing it in >February, but the scene where Jael kills a man always struck me as both >horrifying and deeply satisfactory - you are aware of, and pity, his >inability to see the danger, and still you feel he gets what's coming to >him... He is a product of his environment but he is so disgusting. >I have read a few books that managed without complex characterisations, but >they tend to be idea novels, which is a genre I dislike (never could read >Dickens, which is a little tricky when you teach English Literature for a >living). At least I think that SF and fantasy is mostly past the stage >where cute gadgets/elves, take your pick, are considered adequate >replacements for things like characters and plot. Sadly, I haven't actually read "The Female Man", much as I'd like to; for some reason or another, nobody around here seems to stock any of Joanna Russ' books (except for, I think it was called, "We Who Are About To..."), so I'm afraid I couldn't really comment on that. I agree, though; idea novels have just never really grabbed me, generally speaking. The problem with an idea novel is that every character in it, rather than having a life and belief system of his or her own, is simply a mouthpiece for the author, which means they commit the cardinal sin of having the same "author's voice". The whole point of a fictional novel, IMO, is that it isn't the author that really matters, it's the people who populate the story, and their thoughts, conflicts and actions throughout. An idea novel is basically a lecture dressed up as fiction. Ever read (or try to read) any Ayn Rand? Lord, there's an example of an idea novel run rampant; every character is divided into people Rand speaks through, or the people who disagree with them and as such are portrayed as morons. An author should basically be a journalist of fiction, recording the actions and thoughts of his or her characters without letting his or her own morals and beliefs seep through. Don't get me wrong; some of the best works of the twentieth century (and before) have been basically platforms for the author to express him or herself (I'm thinking of "1984" and "The Handmaid's Tale", specifically), but they also provided sympathetic characters and vivid scenarios to go along with the message. So, yes, while strong characterisation isn't absolutely essential for a piece of fiction, it does make it infinitely more satisfying and memorable a piece of work. I've seen too many novels that had great ideas go down the gurgler because the characters were weak and uninteresting. >Speaking of authors we want to meet in dark alleys, ever read Stephen >Lawhead? I made a Freudian slip once in referring to _Grail_ as his last >novel. He comments that one woman character is the essence of woman: >"bright mystery, clothed in beauty." Excuse me? I am a bright mystery >clothed in beauty or I am not a woman? I'll have androgyny, to go, please. "Bright mystery, clothed in beauty"? Seriously? Oh, God...Not only is it ludicrous enough to suggest that one woman can embody the entire female "essence" (yes, Stephen, we elect official representatives), but that that essence is "bright mystery, clothed in beauty"? Well, I'm a woman and there isn't much that's mysterious about me, and as far as I can see I'm clothed in jeans and a T-shirt. Wow, guess I just haven't gotten the hang of that womanly essence thang. But while we're on the subject, here's another Dark Alley candidate for you: John Carpenter. Yes, _the_ John Carpenter, whose films I used to love ("The Fog", "Halloween", "In The Mouth of Madness") - but that was _before_ yesterday, when I went to see "John Carpenter's Vampires". The leading female character in this film (played by Sheryl Lee, who is a very good actress, though you wouldn't know it from this) is a prostitute who's been bitten by a vampire, and is forced by the reprehensible slayers (whom, I should add, are not supposed to be reprehensible; they're meant to be the heroes) to accompany them in the search for said vampire. During this time, the poor woman recieves an absolute truckload of verbal and physical abuse. She's stripped naked and bound and gagged to a bed, threatened with having her neck snapped, referred to over and over again as "whore" or "bitch", bound again to a car seat, slapped, and punched into unconsciousness - all of this by the guy she, in the film's most insulting twist, eventually falls in love with! By the time the credits rolled, I was ready to do some slaying of my own. It's hard to believe that, in this day and age, films like this can still get made. I later heard someone on Usenet dub this film "John Carpenter's Wifebeaters", and a more apt description I can't think of. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:20:41 -0800 Reply-To: esmarth@banet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Art McGee Subject: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS - DARK MATTER & ANANSI Comments: To: AFAM-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU, AAWOMLIT@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Begin Forward By Art McGee ---------- Date: 30 Dec 1998 02:36:11 -0000 From: esmarth@banet.net Subject: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS - DARK MATTER CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS - DARK MATTER Coeditors Sheree R. Thomas and Martin Simmons are seeking original short fiction for the forthcoming collection, DARK MATTER: ANTHOLOGY OF SCIENCE FICTION, FANTASY, & SPECULATIVE FICTION BY BLACK WRITERS. Featuring the works of established, emerging, and new writers, this landmark anthology will be published in hardcover by Warner Aspect, Spring 2000. The deadline for submissions is April 30, 1999. For complete guidelines, please send E-mail to: esmarth@banet.net or address queries to: Sheree R. Thomas, Editor Attn: DARK MATTER 765 Amsterdam Avenue #3C New York, NY 10025-5707 CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS - ANANSI: FICTION OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA Named after the trickster/storyteller figure in African and Caribbean folklore, ANANSI, a new literary journal, is accepting original short fiction by talented writers of African descent. Dedicated to honoring the diverse storytelling tradition of black writers, this new literary journal will open its 128 pages in January 1999 to the new, the emerging, the established, and the readers who appreciate good fiction. 6"x9" with beautiful cover art, ANANSI is professionally designed and is scheduled for publication four times a year. ---------- End Forward By Art McGee ---------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:36:03 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: Norms...anybody want us to do this off line? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 5:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: << Do you think that "truth" is something prior to the "norm" or even other than the "norm"? If this is the case, then we probably have to decide what "truth" is. Do not we have very many kinds of truths, in fact as many as there are norms. Nope. If you let go of a large rock the truth is it will fall to the ground. Not only will it fall to the ground, but we can neatly predict how long the fall will take. Norms, on the other hand, are merely stories we tell each other. For example, it is 'normal' for men and women to behave in certain ways. Norms change depending on one's culture because they are based in culture, not truth. Or, as Newton said, you can believe anything but you can only prove what is true. << My problem is with this myth of "free choice or will." Your choices are as good/bad as the politics that motivate them. They are never neutral or innocent, but oriented, value laden, exactly as the choices any of us will make. But are the choices based on Newtonian truth, or are they based on variable norms? Whether boys or girls are sent to school are decisions based on norms. How brain development is effected by nutrition is not. < ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:39:02 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: oppression Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/30/98 7:04:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, shericks@PEOPLE- LINK.COM writes: << ust had to add my two cents, Susan >> Sigh. And a good two cents it is. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:35:48 +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*] SV: subtle sexism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here are a few responses to a few comments: > But while we're on the subject, here's another Dark Alley candidate for you: > John Carpenter. Yes, _the_ John Carpenter, whose films I used to love ("The > Fog", "Halloween", "In The Mouth of Madness") - but that was _before_ > yesterday, when I went to see "John Carpenter's Vampires". The leading > female character in this film (played by Sheryl Lee, who is a very good > actress, though you wouldn't know it from this) is a prostitute who's been > bitten by a vampire, and is forced by the reprehensible slayers (whom, I > should add, are not supposed to be reprehensible; they're meant to be the > heroes) to accompany them in the search for said vampire. During this time, > the poor woman recieves an absolute truckload of verbal and physical abuse. > She's stripped naked and bound and gagged to a bed, threatened with having > her neck snapped, referred to over and over again as "whore" or "bitch", > bound again to a car seat, slapped, and punched into unconsciousness - all > of this by the guy she, in the film's most insulting twist, eventually falls > in love with! I saw the review of this and decided it sounded like a-good-woman-is-a-dead-woman, and also that the lines quoted were uncomfortable phallic in their violence (well, I suppose a stake is just too much temptation for some people...). It sounds as though it was worse than I imagined. Why do so many people still believe that women love abuse and abusers? While I do know women whose taste in men is abominable, that generally seems to be a case of 'I can't be anyone exciting so I'll get me an exciting boyfriend' rather than any kind of masochism. I forget which feminist said something like 'why does no woman ask men why they hate us so much,' but sometimes I really feel she has a point. Can you make a movie like that without hating women? >The "system error" finds its strength when each person making a decision >abdicates their responsibilty for it. Perhaps they think they are just >acting on well-recieved tradition and precedent- they probably are. It >takes time and energy to see the history and trajectory of the choices >we habitually make. It takes courage and intelligence and often a dose >of complete foolishness to step off the track that others have laid for >us, especially since we are moving like a freight train forward with the >momentum of all that has come before. But if anything is going to change >every person has to acknowledge that their choices have an impact, and >that denying this is to choose by default, usually to side with the >force of habit, tradition, ...maybe even "patriarchy". I don't quite know why everyone assumes that blaming the system is passing the buck: it is rather an attempt to see _where_ the changes need to be made. What I feel is very important is to acknowledge that the treatment you are subjected to has nothing to do with you personally, or the abuser personally. One of Sweden's more radical feminists once pointed out that when women are oppressed - not given jobs for which they are qualified, not given a raise to which they are entitled, etc. - this is always presented, by the oppressor, as their individual problem and due to their individual situation. In other words, they are told that they were not really qualified, entitled, etc. It is also very easy to think that the oppressor maltreats you because you are a woman, or because you are the kind of woman he/she dislikes. The problem is not that you are a woman, or what kind of woman you are, but that someone considers themselves as having the right to decide that you should be a certain kind - that biological womanhood carries with it an obligation to display certain psychological characteristics, and if you don't you can be punished. I have found it helps to take a step back, survey the situation, and decide whether you want to challenge the oppressor's demands or his/her right to make them. Possibly this is why I sometimes find violent women, at least in SF(not in reality, of course) rather fascinating: while I am myself a pacifist, I do rather relish the portrayal of women who are blatantly 'unfeminine' in this respect. I know from experience, having done years of martial arts, that few things so unsettle the patriarchal people as a woman who could, possibly, defend herself and who refuses protection. Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:56:34 +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: Norms...anybody want us to do this off line? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 12/30/98 5:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, > ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: > > << Do you think that "truth" is something prior to the "norm" or even other > than the "norm"? If this is the case, then we probably have to decide what > "truth" is. > Do not we have very many kinds of truths, in fact as many as there are norms.>> > > Nope. If you let go of a large rock the truth is it will fall to the ground. > Not only will it fall to the ground, but we can neatly predict how long the > fall will take. Norms, on the other hand, are merely stories we tell each > other. For example, it is 'normal' for men and women to behave in certain > ways. Norms change depending on one's culture because they are based in > culture, not truth. So, then, you have taken the decision to define what truth is. You responded to my request to "decide what truth is." From now on, what you say is truth will be truth, because you have taken the decision, a cultural decision. It is already cultured to evaluate the "falling Rock" as true or truth. Do not forget that there are rocks that do not fall even though Newton believes that they must. This truth is time and space bound; you have to be on earth for that truth to work, and we know why it works here. However, this would not affect the "fact" that truth as we understand it is "value laden" culturally. Just think that a falling rock is "true." Why of all the words in the World we have chosen "true" to describe it? Is not it because "truth" brings with it such strength that who sins against will be punished? Of all the examples, a falling rock (or apple) is already truth according to coded knowledge that had already been implemented. Others may describe it in words other than "truth." Rocks will fall within the limits of earth, and that is all. To add to this "norm" the value "truth", you are not stating a norm (or what is called natural phenomenon), you are drawing on the culture and politics of science. And you will be shocked to know how many wars are waged in laboratories and scientific institutions to achieve the status of "truth." >> Or, as Newton said, you can believe anything but you can only prove what is true.<< And prove it according to what methodology? How much of the proof inheres in the method that seeks to prove the truth? And what kind of certification one has to acquire from certain societies? You have to have what is called "accredit credentials" in order to begin to think about proving anything. In a word, you have to be "acculturated." > But are the choices based on Newtonian truth, or are they based on variable > norms? Whether boys or girls are sent to school are decisions based on norms. > How brain development is effected by nutrition is not. Are you saying everything depends on the environment (culture) or on nature? If the first, then we are in total agreement. If the second, which you should since you appeal to truth, then the example is not in your argument's favor. Still, whichever way, I do not see much difference here. Who is fed well is just like that who is sent to Yale or Harvard. Who cannot afford the high tuition will have to settle for less. The truth then becomes dependent on what one eats and on to what school one goes. Truth then like norms depends on many variables rather than on itself. With the exception of amateur scientists, no scientist believe in an immutable constant truth. Thomas Khun said it along time ago. Best wishes, Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:20:08 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: oppression Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Jane returns to the list after a looooong holiday in beautiful Chicago....) The thing about "system errors" (a term I had not heard before and find very useful...that is, I'd only seen it when I did something inexplicable and wrong with my computer) is that usually they aren't as clear cut as, for example, witch trials or soldiers abrogating responsibility for their kills. Most of them seem to be on the lines of suburban street design--you need a car even if you disapprove of cars, because the suburbs make it impossible to get food, get to work, etc, without one. And while individuals can make choices to move to the city, live near the grocery store, plan extra hours of walking (and believe me, that's what you need to get around in the real burbs...hours and hours) it's not feasible in the aggregate. The cities can't hold everyone, there aren't enough jobs that yield free time to walk to the store, and so on. And even for those of us with enough principle to walk everywhere and shop at the co-op, this means considerably more time and expense and stress, possibly leading to burn-out. To my mind it's inadequate to say that individual moral decisions are the bulk of what's required. Especially when there are times that needs have to override morals--I'm too sick to walk to the co-op, therefore I'll buy food at the chainstore which is nearby. Individuals have to _think_ about the systems in which they live and change them, but that doesn't mean that it's even possible to live within the existing system and behave in a completely moral manner. However, there are certainly cases where individual moral responsibility is clear, like the professors who oppress women. I really appreciated the description of patriarchy as a philosophy of oppressing those weaker than you, usually but not neccessarily women. (To simplify what was said...) I'd never thought of the term in such a coherent manner. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:05:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Santanico wrote: <> And Ebert (of Siskel and...) loved it. Gag. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:17:15 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Women Writing Male Protagonists Thank you, Kathleen, for articulating my thoughts so well: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Santanico wrote: >snip< > >Is the old adge "write what you know" out of date? > > >snip again< > > I fail to see how the identity of the author makes the slightest damned bit > of difference in the depiction of a _fictional character_. > Sant. > >Maybe it isn't that men aren't capable of writing authentic female >characters, or that women aren't capable of writing authentic male >characters, etc., but that everyone writes from the experience she/he >knows. >For all but the extraordinary few, I think that knowledge comes from all >the lived in nooks and crannies of the social place you are assigned to >because of your body (or to a less fixed extent, by wealth, religion, >etc.). It comes from all the ways you unconsciously and consciously >"know" you can act, and from the consequences that all your actions will >predictably have, and this knowledge is learned over a lifetime. You can >observe other people, but the tiny, logical details that make the great >characters believable will come first from the life you know best. To put >yourself in someone else's place takes first of all, a knowledge of that >place, and then a willingness to dismantle the predjudices that keep a >person from honestly imagining reasonable actions and reactions. Looks >pretty difficult from this mere reader's point of view. This is exactly what I meant. Santanico asks if the soul has a gender. Well, yes I think it does. I don't know about one's eternal soul, that which will walk the golden streets of heaven or mesh eternally with Nirvana. I can know only the soul that I feel within me now, the core of my being, the essential "I". This core resides within a body and is shaped by the trials, triumphs and day to day life of that body, so of course it has a gender. My eternal soul might be able to mesh as one with Kenneth Star's in the sweet hereafter, but the one I feel daily in my heart does not. This is a soul attuned to its cyclical self because this body normally follows a monthly menstrual cycle. This is not a soul that can follow the masculine, linear journey A to B to C ... This soul knows that A rests next to R which is at times in the vacinity of Y. This soul in this body knows what it is like to think about rape whenever making a lone journey at night. This soul in this body knows what it is like to birth a child and nourish it from my body. This soul in this body knows that menstruation, childbirth, breastfeeding, caretaking is NORMAL. This soul in this body is not a variation of a male, a poor attempt to male normalcy. This female soul is normal in itself, on its own terms. And that's what women can write about that most men can't. Not that they should all write about menstruation and childbirth (though I wish more would) but that they have a better position to write about normal life from a normal female perspective than men do, and to have this potential and waste it writing about men is, to me, a disappointment. In a much less philosophical vein, I'm thinking some on this list are too young to know much about Phyllis Schlaffly who said a woman wouldn't be raped unless she asked for it, who said she was never oppressed because of her sex and couldn't understand women whining about whatever oppression they had subjected themselves to. This is the patriarchal line at its best. Everything is fine, nothing bad happens to good girls. Well, I guess it depends on your definition of fine and your definition of good. But in the world as I see it, women are still oppressed, are still paid less for the same work as men, are still having to fight like crazy to get into a network of power in any organization (1 car manufacturing company in the United States--and probably the world--Saturn, has a woman CEO), are still having to fear for their bodily integrity as they walk down the street and as they live in their homes, are still ridiculed for exhibiting "female" sensitivities in a male world (wonder why female doctors can be as abusive as males? Because it's beaten into them as residents). In almost all major religions of the world women are to be helpmates to men, not the other way around. Maybe I should single handedly change all this, but I just haven't figured out how yet. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:28:15 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: John Carpenter's Vampires... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Actually, it was Gene (Siskel) who REALLY liked it, and Roger gave it a thumbs-down, but only because he felt the constant hacking and shooting took away from what could have been an interesting story about the church giving up on using holy water and crucifixes to get rid of vampires, and instead hiring merceneries. They both loved the fact that the cast didn't include any teenagers, because they're tired of teenaged vampires. Neither one of them even mentioned anything about any female character at all. I've now completely lost any respect I had for their reviews. *sigh*. You can hear what they said about it on the web at http://www.siskelandebert.com - choose "search the vault" and search for "vampires". You have to have shockwave installed. Also on that site is an address where we can send them mail: SISKEL & EBERT c/o WBBM-TV 630 N. McClurg Court Chicago, IL 60611 Might be worth doing, to remind them that their audience includes women (and men, presumably) who don't want to put up with this kind of garbage. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Sophia Hegner [mailto:shegner@MAIL.SDSU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 10:06 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Santanico wrote: <> And Ebert (of Siskel and...) loved it. Gag. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:02:39 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: oppression Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/31/98 7:20:35 AM Mountain Standard Time, JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes: >I really appreciated the description of patriarchy as a philosophy of oppressing those weaker than you> -- it would be sort of impractical to oppress those stronger than you... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:56:25 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: oppression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >-- it would be sort of impractical to oppress those stronger than you... 8-). I don't know about this: it reminds me of the physical superiority/greater strength argument for why men should be in charge - in fact any society (e.g. Victorian Britain as one I know about) usually includes significant nos of men seriously physically stronger than the actual ruler males (who could not, for example, manage to put in a whole day's coalmining) - quite apart from individual women stronger than individual men - and, in VB, had very little political power. What is 'strength'? many different kinds. Lesley lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:15:45 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: Norms and rocks, OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/31/98 6:02:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, ruwaili@KSU.EDU.SA writes: << So, then, you have taken the decision to define what truth is >> Um, nope. I have taken the decision to not stand under heavy objects that have questionable support since, if the support gives way, it is highly likely that I will be clobbered. While it is true that science is open to all ideas (Kuhn was a late comer) it is also true that one recognizes likelihood's associated with the ideas. If you let go of a rock, the probability that it won't fall approaches zero. Forgive me for assuming this was self-evident. Rather than focusing on what is male or female by varying norms, I simply think we should focus on the simple things we can know as true: for example, poor nutrition and nurturance can lead to permanent brain damage. These things are easily measured. Then we can focus on providing appropriate nutrition and nurturance. I think that would be great fun. Then we may wish to consider the truth that the final macro-and micro- anatomy of the brain is the result of life-style (for instance, a typist having a significantly more dendrites in the area of the brain that controls hand coordination) and give some thought to how we might want OUR anatomy to be. I certainly don't think that truth, or reality if you prefer, is culturally defined. Rocks will fall at predictable rates even if human beings cease to exist. Economic systems themselves are norms and have little, if anything, to do with material or social truths. They therefore can be changed to better suit our real needs. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:40:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: Norms and rocks, OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Madrone wrote: <> In my Theory of Knowledge class in my senior year of high school, we spent an awful lot of time around the issue of the difference between truth and reality. Truth, it was determined, is subjective. Ask ten witnesses to a car crash what they saw, and you'll get ten versions of the truth. Reality was what really happened, objectively (what a camcorder would record, I guess, although then there's the issue point of view, so for the sake of argument, let's say it's an omniscent camcorder). IMO, reality = perception and vice versa, because ultimately I don't think we can extricate ourselves from the web which is defining reality/truth. After all, the camcorder's information may well be distorted by perception, hence reality becomes truth. All this to say that I don't think reality and truth are the same thing, and I think it is important to make that distinction. They aren't interchangeable. The word "reality" ought to be used in theoretical discussions to designate an objective perception of things. Right? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:57:38 -0500 Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: suzanne feldman Organization: or lack thereof Subject: Re: joining in temporarily MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > Maryelizabeth (hi, Maryelizabeth!) told me that this list would be > discussing my novel _Brown Girl in the Ring_ early this year. She asked > if I'd like to be present for the discussion. So here, with one > reservation, I am. Hey Nalo! Happy New Year! Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:03:06 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: Norms and rocks, OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/31/98 2:34:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, shegner@MAIL.SDSU.EDU writes: << The word "reality" ought to be used in theoretical discussions to designate an objective perception of things. Right? >> You might be surprised how many people will insist that reality is subjective. I think that as long as we are civilized about it, we can use a variety of words...truth, reality, stuff...as long as we understand the underlying intent. I much prefer truth because it has that wonderful golden glow to it. I like to tell my students that scientists are seeking truth, because it resonates with them and suggests that it has to do with larger issues than which car hit what when. Personal preference. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:38:47 +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: Norms and rocks, OT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Demetria M. Shew wrote: > If you let go of a rock, the probability that it won't fall approaches zero. Two assumptions here. One: you assume that there are rocks only on earth. Two: the value of zero is limited and knowable. Both assumptions are not only assumptions, but proven false. It is true, however, that to stand in the way of a fallen rock is stupid; but who is it we to decide for someone what to do? The probable answer would be: we are the scientists, and therefore know better than anyone else what everyone is supposed to do. That is why nutrition becomes scientific: poor people, malnutritioned, cannot be scientists, poor them because there brains have not been developed sufficiently. > Forgive me for assuming this was self-evident. Yes, I forgive you for assuming what is self-evident, because what is "self-evident" can only be assumed; it can never be proven. > Rather than focusing on what is male or female by varying norms, I simply > think we should focus on the simple things we can know as true: for example, > poor nutrition and nurturance can lead to permanent brain damage. Yes, I agree. But these are not innately present in human beings. They are dependent on the circumstances of one's life. > These things are easily measured. Then we can focus on providing appropriate > nutrition and nurturance. I think that would be great fun. And great money too for big companies. A new research, then, will follow; too many interested groups; investments, etc... for the very scientific fact that nutrition affects brain growth. Nutrition affects other things too. Killing, for example. Wars have started because of food. And this is a scientific fact. At one point in history, when marxism was alive, this used not be so scientific a fact. > > > Then we may wish to consider the truth that the final macro-and micro- anatomy > of the brain is the result of life-style (for instance, a typist having a > significantly more dendrites in the area of the brain that controls hand > coordination) and give some thought to how we might want OUR anatomy to be. If you are interested; gene-engineering does that very quickly. You cannot wait for nutrition to do that for you; your parents would have decide before you are born what kind of brain you should have. The machine beats the natural growth all the time. > I certainly don't think that truth, or reality if you prefer, is culturally > defined. Rocks will fall at predictable rates even if human beings cease to > exist. But then do the rocks themselves know that they are falling? It is we who give them that "truth," it is not inherent in them. > Economic systems themselves are norms and have little, if anything, to do > with material or social truths. They therefore can be changed to better suit > our real needs. The old argument of the scientist in the 18th century. Happy new year Maijan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:30:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Women Writing Male Protagonists In-Reply-To: <000d01be34e9$cc9e3fe0$e14a2599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > In a much less philosophical vein, I'm thinking some on this list are too > young to know much about Phyllis Schlaffly who said a woman wouldn't be > raped unless she asked for it, who said she was never oppressed because of > her sex and couldn't understand women whining about whatever oppression they > had subjected themselves to. Well, Schafly ALSO said that the atom bomb was the gift of God to a righteous nation, or something like that. :[ Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu