Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9902A" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 05:04:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Movie: Cube Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:38 PM 31/01/99 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 1/31/99 3:11:41 AM Mountain Standard Time, >trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: > >>Furthermore, wouldn't teenage boys feel insulted to see themselves invariably >portrayed throughout the flick as shallow, unfeeling, ignorant > >-- well, most of the teenage boys I knew when I was one _were_ shallow, >unfeeling and ignorant, with brutish attitudes towards sex and girls. > >Not all of them, of course. That was my point. Of course some teenage boys are - pardon my French - assholes. Some teenage girls are assholes. But the movie portrayed EVERY boy, without one single exception, as an asshole. Of course, on _this_ list, insisting that males are human too isn't going to win you any popularity contests, as I've learned from the past... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:42:41 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Olivia North Given Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <001701be4c72$eb4b0ea0$e14b2599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Whatever it is, even if it is just dirt, a part of humanity is facing our > mortality and living in spite of, or because of, it. To wish, wish, wish > reality were different stunts our potential. Life is a cycle, whether we're > destined for fertilizer or part of the all -knowing-oneness, our destiny, > the essence of our humanity, is to feel and accept our place in that cycle. > At least that's what I think. i just finished Ursula Le Guin's _The Farthest Shore_, and what i took away from that book was similar to the sentiments expressed above. S P O I L E R S P A C E The inhabitants of earthsea were tricked (by Cob, and their own evil sides) into giving up their humanity for the promise of immortality. but when they ceased to die, they also ceased to live, because life and death are inseparable. according to le guin anyway.....metaphysics and philosophy aside, i always thought immortality would be cool -- because i watch too much highlander, and am really into history, so really like the idea that i would have all the time in the world to travel and be part of important events. but listening to this discussion and other portrayals of immortality, i realize that the highlander view is really romanticized -- aren't duncan and co. lucky to always be in the right places in the right times?! Olivia "Being can take the place of Having" On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Joyce Jones wrote: > OK, here's my little push for mortality again. Those of us who have > children, you know how you look at them when they're 3 months or 3 years > old, all soft and cuddly and innocent and just wish they could stay that way > forever? Then you know how proud you are of them when they're 15 or 25 and > make some major life change or accomplishment? What a shame it would have > been to have kept them in their innocent infancy and have missed the > wonderful adults they grow into. I think the same is true with mortality. > No matter how much we love whatever we've made out of life, we can't > possibly know how much else there is. The only way to know is to go to that > place no one ever returns from and find out. Maybe it's just dirt, but > maybe it's different planets or being a different sex or a different race or > finally loving everyone and understanding how we're all connected. > > Whatever it is, even if it is just dirt, a part of humanity is facing our > mortality and living in spite of, or because of, it. To wish, wish, wish > reality were different stunts our potential. Life is a cycle, whether we're > destined for fertilizer or part of the all -knowing-oneness, our destiny, > the essence of our humanity, is to feel and accept our place in that cycle. > At least that's what I think. > > Joyce > > Life is the childhood of our immortality. -Goethe (1749-1832) > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:21:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's time already to begin discussion of our next book, Joanna Russ's The Female Man. So dive right in! Don't be shy. Did you enjoy it? Did it make you laugh? Could you identify with any of the characters? (which one?) Did you understand it? Have any trouble figuring out who's voice was carrying the story? Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time? Russ began writing it in 1969, thirty years ago. Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book. If you read it years ago, and just now re-read it for this discussion, how was the experience different for you? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:33:24 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E4B2A8770F36831050DB50D9" --------------E4B2A8770F36831050DB50D9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have read this book several times and used it for classes in science fiction. Despite the ferocity with which it was greeted by some men upon publication, I have not found male students especially antagonistic toward it, (perhaps because I am/was not). Admiration and perplexity stem more from the book's fragmentation (most of these students are not literature majors) than its hectoring tone, which I happen to think is muted in part because the fragmented form distances some of its attacks ("it's only sf" like "it's only a movie"). Any of the five threads could be (and have been) developed further (mainly by others), but this particular assemblage of them is sui generis, defying sequelitis. It may be open to attack for having no males with redeeming qualities, but for it to have any would (I think) defeat the purpose; besides, any book is (to some extent) an expression of feelings and opinions that may not be universal, even in the author's biography. The fragmented form may weaken the immersion factor (we don't get to know anyone in depth, unless we read all the protagonists as one), but that's true of most impressionistic narratives (cf. Delany, Dick, Disch, and LeGuin, emerging at the same time). Naturalism and sf don't usually get along. I think Jeff Riggenbach in the National Review was prescient at the time of publication in terms of the book's staying power (less so with regard to Dhalgren). The issues have not gone away and the style is still incisive. I'm not sure it was completely to our benefit as readers that Joanna vented her spleen so well in this book that she has published little sf since. Jennifer Krauel wrote: > It's time already to begin discussion of our next book, Joanna Russ's The > Female Man. > > So dive right in! Don't be shy. > > Did you enjoy it? Did it make you laugh? > Could you identify with any of the characters? (which one?) > Did you understand it? Have any trouble figuring out who's voice was > carrying the story? > > Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time? Russ began writing > it in 1969, thirty years ago. Unfortunately to me it seems we still have > great need of this book. > > If you read it years ago, and just now re-read it for this discussion, how > was the experience different for you? --------------E4B2A8770F36831050DB50D9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have read this book several times and used it for classes in science fiction.  Despite the ferocity with which it was greeted by some men upon publication, I have not found male students especially antagonistic toward it, (perhaps because I am/was not).  Admiration and perplexity stem more from the book's fragmentation (most of these students are not literature majors) than its hectoring tone, which I happen to think is muted in part because the fragmented form distances some of its attacks ("it's only sf" like "it's only a movie").  Any of the five threads could be (and have been) developed further (mainly by others), but this particular assemblage of them is sui generis, defying sequelitis.

It may be open to attack for having no males with redeeming qualities, but for it to have any would (I think) defeat the purpose; besides, any book is (to some extent) an expression of feelings and opinions that may not be universal, even in the author's biography.  The fragmented form may weaken the immersion factor (we don't get to know anyone in depth, unless we read all the protagonists as one), but that's true of most impressionistic narratives (cf. Delany, Dick, Disch, and LeGuin, emerging at the same time).  Naturalism and sf don't usually get along.

I think Jeff Riggenbach in the National Review was prescient at the time of publication in terms of the book's staying power (less so with regard to Dhalgren).  The issues have not gone away and the style is still incisive.  I'm not sure it was completely to our benefit as readers that Joanna vented her spleen so well in this book that she has published little sf since.
 
 

Jennifer Krauel wrote:

It's time already to begin discussion of our next book, Joanna Russ's The Female Man.

So dive right in!  Don't be shy.

Did you enjoy it?  Did it make you laugh?
Could you identify with any of the characters? (which one?)
Did you understand it?  Have any trouble figuring out who's voice was carrying the story?

Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time?  Russ began writing it in 1969, thirty years ago.  Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book.

If you read it years ago, and just now re-read it for this discussion, how was the experience different for you?

--------------E4B2A8770F36831050DB50D9-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:02:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <19990201172513089.AAA261.109@jennifer.actioneer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > It's time already to begin discussion of our next book, Joanna Russ's The > Female Man. > > Did you enjoy it? Did it make you laugh? > Could you identify with any of the characters? (which one?) > Did you understand it? Have any trouble figuring out who's voice was > carrying the story? > > Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time? Russ began writing > it in 1969, thirty years ago. Unfortunately to me it seems we still have > great need of this book. > > If you read it years ago, and just now re-read it for this discussion, how > was the experience different for you? > I first read The Female Man in the early 1970s and didn't like it much at the time--probably hadn't had my consciousness raised adequately as a 24 year old, male graduate student. I reread it last year, however, for a class I was teaching on gender and science fiction and enjoyed the heck out of it. Unfortunately, as I noted on this list at that time, my students, a mixed bag of English majors and minors and Women's Studies minors, couldn't make heads or tails out of the book. They couldn't get most of the jokes and insisted that most of the scarey parts were too exaggerated to be worthwhile. >Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book. I agree, but I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live through the sixties and seventies as adults. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:14:14 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book. > >I agree, but I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live >through the sixties and seventies as adults. > > >Mike Levy And here's an opening for me. I was born in 1964, and didn't find this book until I was in my mid-twenties (and married and in the army). I found it astonishing--a guilty pleasure, knowing that my husband wouldn't think any of it was funny. It served as one of the the texts that allowed me to come out to myself, too (as lesbian). To me, reading it then in the mid-1980's it was a wonderful, revealing, righteously angry book, and one that had by no means become dated or stale. Sheryl LeSage ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:21:15 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephany Burge Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: ; from Michael Marc Levy on Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:02:59PM -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:02:59PM -0600, Michael Marc Levy writes... > > Did you enjoy it? Did it make you laugh? I found it very hard to follow. If there was humor to the book, I didn't get it. Basically, I don't think I understood the book. I could only vaguely identify how the story may be applicable to today's society. It wasn't very relevant in my own life. I did enjoy the ending though. It brought some overall sense to the story (for me at least...) > > Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time? Russ began writing > > it in 1969, thirty years ago. Unfortunately to me it seems we still have > > great need of this book. > I agree, but I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live > through the sixties and seventies as adults. It didn't work for me. I was born in 1974. I just graduated from college & this is my first year as an engineer in the San Francisco Bay area. I also have an fantastic boyfriend who is very proud of my degree in chemical engineering. If anything, this book helped me see just how far we've come in the last 30 years. -Stephany ps. Greetings to everyone! I only joined this list a few weeks ago. I hadn't sent out introductory email yet.... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:38:20 -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: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <001d01be4e1f$73204540$18699ad1@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree Sheryl. I was born in 1967 and first read it when I was around 19 and understood its anger and its message. Being bisexual may have something to do with it (then again I believe everyones bisexual they just dont want to admit it). Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: > > > >>Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book. > > > >I agree, but I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live > >through the sixties and seventies as adults. > > > > > >Mike Levy > > And here's an opening for me. I was born in 1964, and didn't find this book > until I was in my mid-twenties (and married and in the army). I found it > astonishing--a guilty pleasure, knowing that my husband wouldn't think any > of it was funny. It served as one of the the texts that allowed me to come > out to myself, too (as lesbian). To me, reading it then in the mid-1980's > it was a wonderful, revealing, righteously angry book, and one that had by > no means become dated or stale. > > Sheryl LeSage > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:30:28 -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: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <19990201172513089.AAA261.109@jennifer.actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Gosh that reminds me-I gotta reread the darn thing! Right now I am reading "Jingo" by Terry Pratchett. Gotta love a Pratchett novel! Anyway, I want to say, what I remember about Female Man is that I identified with all of the main female characters. Yes I know some characters are almost exact opposites of each other, but that is what I believe makes up modern day women anyhow. Maybe that was Russ' point? My early 2 cents, Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > It's time already to begin discussion of our next book, Joanna Russ's The > Female Man. > > So dive right in! Don't be shy. > > Did you enjoy it? Did it make you laugh? > Could you identify with any of the characters? (which one?) > Did you understand it? Have any trouble figuring out who's voice was > carrying the story? > > Do you feel the book stood up well to the test of time? Russ began writing > it in 1969, thirty years ago. Unfortunately to me it seems we still have > great need of this book. > > If you read it years ago, and just now re-read it for this discussion, how > was the experience different for you? > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:08:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: Movie: Cube MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Art McGee wrote: > Maybe I've been reading too much bell hooks I don't think it's possible to read too much bell hooks. She's amazing! --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:13:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Another 1964 baby here, so I don't think that generations are going to make the difference...oddly (perhaps) enough, the two lesbians I've leant this two have been utterly thrown by it, one seeing it as humorlessly didactic (didactic at times, yes), the other not making any sense of it, and when she lent it to another friend of hers, the friend pronounced it unintelligible (as she gravely reported to me). Another good friend, a gender-bending woman, also had difficulty with it--but none of these people was much of a reader of the kind of non-linear fiction that Russ gives us here. I've loved this book since reading it ca. age 17, and think it a much braver statement even than "When It Changed" (though some of what's here didn't become clear to me until I read ON STRIKE AGAINST GOD, some of her essays, and her interview with Charles Platt in DREAM MAKERS II over the next several years). I'm finally reading THE ADVENTURES OF ALYX right now, and it's interesting to see her building toward what she would do with TFM. I hope her physical problems and the lukewarm commercial response she's met won't keep her from attempting something of TFM's complexity in novel form again. ---Bertina Miller wrote: > > I agree Sheryl. I was born in 1967 and first read it when I was > around 19 and understood its anger and its message. Being bisexual may > have something to do with it (then again I believe everyones bisexual > they just dont want to admit it). > > Bertina > bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu > > On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: > > > > > > >>Unfortunately to me it seems we still have great need of this book. > > > > > >I agree, but I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live > > >through the sixties and seventies as adults. > > > > > > > > >Mike Levy > > > > And here's an opening for me. I was born in 1964, and didn't find this book > > until I was in my mid-twenties (and married and in the army). I found it > > astonishing--a guilty pleasure, knowing that my husband wouldn't think any > > of it was funny. It served as one of the the texts that allowed me to come > > out to myself, too (as lesbian). To me, reading it then in the mid-1980's > > it was a wonderful, revealing, righteously angry book, and one that had by > > no means become dated or stale. > > > > Sheryl LeSage > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:13:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: immortality again S.M. Stirling wrote: >>hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: >I guess that means you think if you don't want to die you won't. What planet did you say you came from? -- the one where they just discovered why cells age, and how to stop it... 8-). More seriously, I thought we were using the conditional-hypothetical mode here? SFnal, that is.>> Death is the absolute. Hypothesize all you want from that point, but shouldn't there be some realistic basis for the discussion? Yes, we're finding more about how cells age, meaning that with assistance the human lifespan can be lengthened. But if you think science can find a way to eliminate death I'm thinking you place too much faith in human ability. Joyce I'd like to make a motion that we face reality. Bob Newhart ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:15:20 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The genius of this book, in part, is in showing us the "utopia" has horrible aspects, as well as showing us female characters as conflicted, not completely noble creatures without any of that undermining the well-deserved critique of misogyny in our society, as mirrored in the four we see. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:27:38 -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: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Marc Levy wrote: > I wonder if the book will work for those who didn't live > through the sixties and seventies as adults. > I was born in 1965 and this is the first time I've read The Female Man. I thought it was interesting and well done, but I wasn't entertained by it, nor did I find it humorous in the least. I suppose I would have reacted differently if I had read it in college, before I had a clue about feminism, or 8-10 years ago when I was waking up. I have to confess I am not quite to the end, but so far there have been only two things that strongly effected me - one, the whole section where Jeannine decides to marry Cal made me feel sick. Well, it's supposed to. At the same time, she seemed dated (for the 90's). I pictured a young woman of the fifties, and fortunately I think there are few of those left, at least none quite as extreme in their indoctrination as Jeannine seemed to be. The second thing that struck me and I really loved, was this passage (138-139 in my edition, quoted in full because who knows what page it may be in your books), I think by Joanna, on becoming a female man: To resolve contrarieties, unite them in your own person. This means: in all hopelessness, in terror of your life, without a future, in the sink of the worst despair that you can endure and will yet leave you the sanity to make a choice - take in your bare right hand one naked, severed, high tension wire. Take the other in your left hand. Stand in a puddle. (Don't worry about letting go; you can't.) Electricity favors the prepared mind, and if you interfere in this avalanche by accident you will be knocked down dead, you will be charred like a cutlet, and your eyes will be turned to burst red jellies, but if those wires are your own wires - hang on. God will keep your eyes in your head and your joints knit one to the other. When She sends the high voltage alone, well, we've all experienced those little shocks - you just shed it over your outside like a duck and it does nothing to you - but when She roars down in high voltage and amperage both, She is after your marrow-bones; you are making yourself a conduit for holy terror and the ecstasy of Hell. But only in that way can the wires heal themselves. Only in that way can they heal you. Women are not used to power; that avalanche of ghastly strain will lock your muscles and your teeth in the attitude of an electrocuted rabbit, but you are a strong woman, you are God's favorite, and you can endure; if you can say "yes, okay, go on" - after all, where else can you go? What else can you do? - if you let yourself through yourself and into yourself and out of yourself, turn yourself inside out, give yourself the kiss of reconciliation, marry yourself, love yourself - Well, I turned into a man. We love, says Plato, that in which we are defective; when we see our magical Self in the mirror of another, we pursue it with desperate cries - Stop! I must possess you! - but if it obligingly stops and turns, how on earth can one possess it? Fucking, if you will forgive the pun, is an anti-climax. And you are as poor as before. For years I wandered in the desert, crying: Why do you torment me so? and Why do you hate me so? and Why do you put me down so? and I will abase myself and I will please you and Why, oh why have you forsaken me? This is very feminine. What I learned late in life, under my rain of lava, under my kill-or-cure, unhappily, slowly, stubbornly, barely, and in really dreadful pain, was that there is one and only way to possess that in which we are defective, therefore that which we need, therefore that which we want. Become it. It was worth reading the whole book just for that! (Susan says, exposing her Jungian obsessions)... I'll let you know if the ending of the book changes my mind. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:02:14 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/99 6:38:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: << Yes, we're finding more about how cells age, meaning that with assistance the human lifespan can be lengthened. But if you think science can find a way to eliminate death I'm thinking you place too much faith in human ability. -- eliminating aging will do fine for me. It's an unpleasant process... 8-). Since even the universe will eventually 'die', there's an upper limit, but I want to push it as hard as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:10:28 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: BDG: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I read it back in the 70's and thought it was quite witty, but that it would date. (That is to say, I expected rapid progress in what the author assumed would be immutable problems.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:54:33 -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: <213d4ade.36b66ab6@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I dont understand this fascination with immortality. As an atheist I find it improbable. Since I am a prodeath person I certainly want to die ASAP whenever I want to. I certainly believe in the right to die. I keep on thinking of the lingering lifes people on life support have to put up with in the name of an outmoded religious concept. No thanks! Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 2/1/99 6:38:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, > hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > > << Yes, we're finding more about how cells age, meaning that with assistance > the human lifespan can be lengthened. But if you think science can find a way > to eliminate death I'm thinking you place too much faith in human ability. > > -- eliminating aging will do fine for me. It's an unpleasant process... 8-). > Since even the universe will eventually 'die', there's an upper limit, but I > want to push it as hard as possible. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:57:52 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/99 8:54:50 PM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: << I dont understand this fascination with immortality. As an atheist I find it improbable >> -- I don't think we were talking about the religious version. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:30:13 -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: <538ddbdc.36b677c0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It still applies--I find it improbable that there will be a solution to death. That is more scary to me than the natural part of life which death is. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 2/1/99 8:54:50 PM Mountain Standard Time, > bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: > > << I dont understand this fascination with immortality. As an atheist I find > it improbable >> > > -- I don't think we were talking about the religious version. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:48:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peatling & Barnes Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Bertina Miller Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 8:14 PM >Gosh that reminds me-I gotta reread the darn thing! Right now I am reading >"Jingo" by Terry Pratchett. Gotta love a Pratchett novel! I know, I know.... I should have read Russ, but Pratchett is more my intellectual speed these days. Love all of them. JaneP ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:31:02 -0500 Reply-To: Lilith Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Subject: Re: the female man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK I haven't read the book yet - but I am going to as soon as [enter excuse here]. I have read other Russ works though, and despite the occasional disagreements with some of her ideology and stuff like that, and despite the fact that in _my own life_ I have thankfully not had to endure the sort of discrimination that women in the 50's had to (I was born in '63) - though I have had to deal with the sort of petty every-day little put-downs and instances that are always like little speedbumps in the path to me enjoying my life - I think that some of us are premature in saying that Russ' concerns as outlined in _Female Man_ are "dated." Because tonight I just got back from Barnes & Noble where I was sitting and having a cup of hot cocoa and a scone and reading some magazines I would not buy, including the latest issue of New Yorker wherein a (male) columnist (Michael something?) wrote a commentary on columnist Maureen Dowd, and the whole article could have been written in the oh, I don't know, the fifties or sixties or something, so cattily anti-woman was it. There was a whole subthread concerning the men Ms. Dowd was dating and how maybe they are the impetus behind her "venomous" writing style; there was the title "Why is Maureen Dowd so Angry?"; there was the unfavorable comparison to Anna Quindlen, a "nurturing, comforting" columnist who wrote about family matters more to the New Yorker article writer's liking, apparently ( _I_ remember thinking that much of the stuff Ms. Quindlen wrote was sentimental cack); there was the implication that Ms. Dowd got where she is by shmoozing with the editors and owners of the publication she works for (as if men don't get ahead by old-boy networks); and the frank astonishment (with an obvious undercurrent of resentment) that Ms. Dowd does not choose to flaunt her private life in public - at a time when people are bemoaning the lack of privacy and discretion in society! - and then in another paragraph seeming to chastise her for daring to bring her date and mingle with people _at a party_ instead of huddling off to the sidelines with friends like "she usually does." That was only one of the many wonderful examples of "how far we've come" that I got to see in just a few magazines (I am not even going to bother with the ads featuring doe-eyed, barely-prepubescent models with that "touch me in inappropriate ways" looks on their faces). No wonder I stick to _PC World_ most of the time. Lilith ********************************************* ************Hell's Half Acre*************** * http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia * ********************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:00:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: BDG: The Female Man I read this last summer on a cross-country drive (CA to MT), so I don't remember it clearly enough to make specific points. For what it's worth, though, I was born in 1974 and a lot of the basic "discussion points" were *soooo* familiar. There's obviously a lot of improvement. I got to go to an engineering school that was almost exclusively male one generation ago. Only one person asked me if I was going to meet men. Only one other person went out of his way to tell me that I could get in with lower grades because I was a woman. (I was 4th in my class of 550. Whatever.) How long ago was this? You can do the math. It was six years ago. I strongly suspect that a lot of 50-year-old women don't have to take as much shit as they did thirty years ago in part because they're no longer 20. To some degree, every 20-year-old has to take a lot of shit. That's exacerbated by whatever else contributes to a given twenty-year-old's lack of power (female, gay, non-white, anything). This is a bit off-topic. But you may be sure that very few of the issues that Russ talks about are inaccessible. (The structure threw me for the first 30 pages. Then I just said the hell with it, and stopped trying to understand it, which made it much easier to read.) jessie the young'un ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:10:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <001701be4c72$eb4b0ea0$e14b2599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Joyce Jones wrote: > Whatever it is, even if it is just dirt, a part of humanity is facing our > mortality and living in spite of, or because of, it. To wish, wish, wish > reality were different stunts our potential. Life is a cycle, whether we're > destined for fertilizer or part of the all -knowing-oneness, our destiny, > the essence of our humanity, is to feel and accept our place in that cycle. > At least that's what I think. I guess it depends on personal preference. Some people are afraid of getting bored, others don't like the idea of outliving everyone (or as in case of that X-files guy -- to know when someone dies an being unable to prevent it), while others again see life as a cycle that needs to be completed -- or wonder about what's on the other side. People are different, and so are their attitude towards life and death. It's just for me -- none of the above mentioned reasons is good enough to turn down a chance for immortality. I don't care what is there on the other side, really. I have a big suspision that it's nothing. You just turn into a big pile of biological waste, and that's the end of it. People die and/or leave you even when you are way below ninety -- and eventually you stop missing them -- so outliving everyone you know is not such a big deal. Finally, knowing that a person is going to die and being unable to help -- it's not that different from, say, working at a hospice, and many people do that. So, you can just see the world as one big hospice (which it is, anyway). In other words, if I was offered a chance to live forever, I would say yes without a second thought. Which of course does not mean anyone else has to. After all, I believe in choice, so -- each to their own. IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:40:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: In-Utero Entertainment Subject: In-Utero Entertainment check out this site http://www.theonion.com/onion3503/inutero_tv.html Finally, we don't have to rely on simple cradle to grave programming. If big business could just catch those little buggers while they're still zygotes, what a happier, quieter world it could be. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:49:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > I dont understand this fascination with immortality. As an atheist I find > it improbable. Since I am a prodeath person I certainly want to die ASAP > whenever I want to. I certainly believe in the right to die. I keep on > thinking of the lingering lifes people on life support have to put up with > in the name of an outmoded religious concept. No thanks! Well, I believe in suicide -- no one has a right to prevent a person from going when they feel like it. I also don't think the desire to live forever has anything to do with religious concepts. I believe in death penalty, late-term abortion, and taking someone out for self-defence, and none of this issues has anything to do with religion, in my opinion -- it's just plain common sense. I also think people should be allowed to perform euthanasia if that's what the patient wants. it's their body and their suffering, and htey should be able to end it. However. If I ever get into a coma, there is no way I want anyone to turn off the life support system -- even if the machine would have to breathe for me for the next eighty years. Even if there is no scientific probability for me to ever come back to life -- hell, weird stuff happens all the time, I can be the first to beat the odds. Plus, science might eventually some up with a way to "restart" even a dead brain. I agree with those who want to make turning off life support legal, but I'll _never_ agree for that done to myself. In other words, I think it's all a matter of personal choice. I don't want to do it not because it's "good" or "bad", but simply because i don't want to. IMHO, people should be allowed to "die peacefully" if that's what they want. The point is -- I have no such desire. I won't prevent anyone from dying as long as they are not trying to make me join them. By the way, talking about the argument itself -- I'd like to remind us that we started it from discussing the X-files. _Of course_ it is not possible to live forever in reality, whether you want it or not -- not at this point of time, anyway. We were talking about "what if", and particularly, whether any of us wanted to be in the place of the immortal guy from that episode. It is not like those who do have a better chance to do it -- it's science fiction, so whether it is realistic or not -- is irrelevant. Apparently, most people here would not want to be immortal even if they could. I may not share their reasons -- but I won't stand on their way. Forcing people to stay alive is as ridiculous as prosecuting suicides. IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:42:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: immortality again MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Is it really immortality you want or the voyeurist power to see what happens, the elimination of the problems of ageing, and the right to pull the plug out at your own choice? This whole discussion reminds me of that classic fantasy (I know it won the Hugo as best sf) by Robert Bloch, "That Hell-Bound Train." Marina wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Joyce Jones wrote: > > > Whatever it is, even if it is just dirt, a part of humanity is facing our > > mortality and living in spite of, or because of, it. To wish, wish, wish > > reality were different stunts our potential. Life is a cycle, whether we're > > destined for fertilizer or part of the all -knowing-oneness, our destiny, > > the essence of our humanity, is to feel and accept our place in that cycle. > > At least that's what I think. > > I guess it depends on personal preference. Some people are afraid of > getting bored, others don't like the idea of outliving everyone (or as in > case of that X-files guy -- to know when someone dies an being unable > to prevent it), while others again see life as a cycle that needs to be > completed -- or wonder about what's on the other side. People are > different, and so are their attitude towards life and death. > > It's just for me -- none of the above mentioned reasons is good enough to > turn down a chance for immortality. I don't care what is there on the > other side, really. I have a big suspision that it's nothing. You just > turn into a big pile of biological waste, and that's the end of it. > People die and/or leave you even when you are way below ninety -- > and eventually you stop missing them -- so outliving everyone you know is > not such a big deal. Finally, knowing that a person is > going to die and being unable to help -- it's not that different from, > say, working at a hospice, and many people do that. So, you can just see > the world as one big hospice (which it is, anyway). In other words, if I > was offered a chance to live forever, I would say yes without a second > thought. > > Which of course does not mean anyone else has to. After all, I believe in > choice, so -- each to their own. > > IMHO, > Marina > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:01:50 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <19990202011520.5677.rocketmail@send1e.yahoomail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII THE FEMALE MAN is fresh in my mind at the moment; I had a class on it last week. The sixth or seventh time I have done it, and reactions are slightly different each time. As usual, there were a few men who hated it, and a few who didn't see what the fuss were about, and this time (unusually) ALL the women enjoyed it, and did not find it dated at all. Mind you, were are talking of quite a small sample: I have a dozen or so in my "Modern American Utopias" class, with a slight preponderance of men. A couple of things have surprised me about the comments so far. The comment that someone had found it humourless: I think it is one of the funniest sf novels around. And the comment that aspects of Whileaway were "horrible". Which? The duelling is the only thing I can think of. Yes, the women are not shown as perfect; they are still human, after all. But, were I not debarred from it by an accident of nature, I think it is one of the VERY few Utopias where I could live happily. In part, of course, it is because it is one of the very few utopias where people are shown to have a strong sense of humour and of the ridiculous: and we have to wonder how much of the description of Whileaway is part of Russ's joke... Edward .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK Director, Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:18:40 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG The Female Man I loved this book, though much in it was infuriating. The worst part was though the book was written in 1971 the attitudes that were its impetus have not changed. There are more females in colleges and graduate school, when you call a plumber you might now get a woman instead of a man. That's nice. But women are still the one's made to feel guilty when children suffer emotional disturbances, are socially maladjusted, or just can't read. And the solution to all of life's ills seems to be that we need to make sure every family has a man at its helm. Jeannine might not feel too out of place in 1999. I was so possessed by Female Man that as soon as I finished I had to read Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time which has lead to Tepper's Decline and Fall. It's just an orgy of feminism. What a wonderful month it's been. So much to discuss, I'll just touch on a few thoughts. My favorite character was Jael. When s/he allowed the adrenaline to rush through her so that she could kill as she needed, I just loved it. No, I didn't love the killing, but I was uplifted by her complete sense of mastery, her lack of physical fear (kind of like when Connie in Woman on the Edge goes to the "bad" future and feels no fear when terrorized by the male cyborg) I think many males, even now (I'm thinking of those self important, feather ruffling MD's I know) are first amazed then angered at a woman's lack of fear. Good for Jael, no wonder Jeannine felt an attraction. Another favorite scene was when Jeannine was cleaning her house before going to spend the week with her brother. She just cleaned and cleaned, then washed the windows even though she knew they'd "be filthy" when she came back in a week and she'd have to wash them again. (What would have got them so dirty except her perception of the endless work of cleaning that was her duty?) I've seen this woman, a couple of times in my life I've even been her. Clean, clean, clean, serve, serve, serve, don't think, be a good girl. Then there's Whileaway, a difficult utopia where people aren't considered to be emotionally disturbed if they get irritated with each other. A utopia where people work hard, expect to work hard, expect to work at what they want, thoroughly enjoy having children, expect their children to grow and find their own interests. I've thought about this utopia and the future utopia in Woman on the Edge and the sacrifices the authors have thought necessary to achieve full humanity for woman. On Whileaway there are no men, in Woman on the Edge there are men but they mother and breastfeed just like women, but women have given up the right, then the ability to bear children. It seems these authors (and Nicola Griffith in Ammonite?) think full equality between the sexes cannot be achieved as long as only one sex can bear and nourish children. That's such a harsh pronouncement. How I hope it isn't true. Did anyone see the Mo Gaffney-Kathy Najimy sketch in which they're creating earth and decide on a whim to have women be the ones to bear children. Kathy mentions that this will make the men feel too deprived, what can they do to make the privilege seem less wonderful? Mo has the brilliant idea, they'll have the babies pass through a little hole in the woman's body, the pain will make it easier for the men to be deprived of the process. Then they laugh uproariously. Poor men--womb envy was the title mentioned on the woman's spirituality list. I think it's true. Now, since probably there's not going to be a plague to wipe out men, and probably woman aren't going to give up bearing children, how do we solve the problem, or are we always destined to be at war? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:55:54 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG The Female Man/Bibliography/When It Changed In-Reply-To: <003c01be4e8d$074a07c0$9c4b2599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I had read _The Female Man_ (TFM) for the first time 4-5 years ago and remembered it as a difficult and angry book. When I read it this time I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had no difficulties with the 'New Wave', 'deconstructivist', 'non-linear' writing (or whatever the correct term is). At the beginning I thought I could distinguish who the current story-teller was, in the latter part of the book it became difficult to impossible (the viewpoint switches from sentence to sentence sometimes) but I simply accepted that. What I had forgotten was that the book has a lot of humour, at least the first half of it. In some of the messages on TFM so far the posters said they did not find any humour. I am thinking e.g. of the scenes when Janet is interviewed on TV or when at the party a man tries to flirt with her or sentences like 'She loved her father and once was enough' or that paragraph about the black poodle and the final sentence 'At least she is white.' (I've read that paragraph several times before I've got it.). It is not humour to lough out loud and what's behind it is sometimes horrible but I at least had to grin at these parts. However, IMO the latter part of the book is more angry and less 'humorous'. On 1 Feb 99 Todd Mason wrote: > The genius of this book, in part, is in showing us the "utopia" has > horrible aspects, ... What horrible aspects? I think it is not a 'comfortable' utopia. Every person has to be extremely (emotionally) self-sufficient, is completely rootless after her 5th life year, has to create her own family, etc. Perhaps it is because I did not have a Whileawayan upbringing but the description chilled me. But I would not describe it as horrible. On 2 Feb 99 Joyce Jones wrote: > Then there's Whileaway, a difficult utopia where people aren't > considered to be emotionally disturbed if they get irritated with > each other. A utopia where people work hard, expect to work hard, > expect to work at what they want, ... Several times in the description of Whileaway the hard work was stressed but then it was said that a Whileawayan work week is 16 hours. So what is true? Whileawayans work hard in our sense of the word (I think more than 40 hours a week a lot of work) or that they call 16 hours a week hard work or that they work especially hard in these 16 hours (I tend to the last interpretation). On 2 Feb 99 Joyce Jones wrote: > My favorite character was Jael. When s/he allowed the adrenaline to > rush through her so that she could kill as she needed, I just loved > it. No, I didn't love the killing, but I was uplifted by her > complete sense of mastery, her lack of physical fear ... Which of the four 'J' characters we like or not probably says a lot about us. I did not like Jael, could not stand Jeannine while at the same time I pitied her, empathized the most with Joanna and admired Janet. And why use 's/he' for Jael? I was out of the office most of November and December and could not follow the discussion. When I've read up the BDG discussion in the archive I've noticed that Kathleen Friello no longer provides the online bibliography for the current BDG books. I at least always loved to read the reviews and as I have a special interest in TFM at the moment I've done an online search. However, the result is meager: Science Fiction Weekly Review by Doug Fratz http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue66/classic.html Strange Words Review by ??? http://www.strangewords.com/archive/female.html Anger, Laughter, Silence, Transformations and Transgression in Women's Language (Explorations in the Fiction of Joanna Russ and the Dutch Film "A Question of Silence."). Essay by Keridwen N. Luis In: Feminista 1 (1997) 2 (TFM is discussed in the middle of the essay) http://www.feminista.com/v1n2/luisv1n2.html Single-Sexed Utopias and Our Two-Sexed Reality, essay by Susan Stone-Blackburn, discusses TFM, _The Wanderground_ and _A Door into Ocean_ http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~dmswitze/slonczewski/stone-blackburn.html The Unofficial Joanna Russ Homepage, by 'Spirit, the University of Connecticut Libraries Information Server' http://www.lib.uconn.edu/~jlinden/russ.htm C.R.O.N.E.S - Open forum for discussion of the writings of Joanna Russ (organized by FSFFU list members) http://www.breakingset.org/ Student paper on Joanna Russ by Michelle Tabo http://www.english.uiuc.edu/vaughn/english120/russ.htm After I finished TFM I wanted to reread _When it changed_ (WIC) which I thought I had read in LeGuin's Norton SF anthology. But what a surprise, the Russ' story in there is 'Some things I know about Whileaway' (or so). And WIC is not in 'Women of Wonder: The Classic Years' either. Then I looked it up in the Locus Guide but according to that website it is not in print currently and all the older anthologies and collections (the most recent one being _The Best of the Nebulas_ of 1990) are not at the libraries I have access to. Can somebody suggest a collection containing the story and currently in print? Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:46:44 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:33:24 -0800 >From: Dave Samuelson >Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man [snip] >It may be open to attack for having no males with redeeming >qualities, but for it to have any would (I think) defeat the purpose; >besides, any book is (to some extent) an expression of feelings and >opinions that may not be universal,even in the author's biography. [...] There's one male with one redeeming quality: the well-hung wired he-chimp. I really liked that part, kind of an anticipation of cyberpunk and beyond. I thought the section with the mildly depressed woman with the cat and the jerky boyfriend was very good, it had a certain clang of truth to it. I liked the section set on Whileaway (can't remember which name is which). BTW, can any litcrit types out there comment on this? I always had the feeling that Whileaway was sort of a response to the Skoptsies in Cordwainer Smith's "The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal." ( For those who haven't read it, a major spoiler: # # # # said Commander Suzdal encounters a lost colony of humans who have suffered through a plague which killed all the females; they live on in an all-male society which is only hinted at, but seems nightmarishly vivid and exotic. One distinct parallel to Whileawayan society is the practice of lethal duels.) # end spoiler # # # I didn't mind the braided technique because, as someone else on the list said, I just read them as separate stories and I ignored a lot of the more confusing stuff that happened when they all come together towards the end of the book. Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:02:45 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: immortality by way of Highlander.... In-Reply-To: <36B6AC4D.D772255E@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I haven't really been following this discussion, once it veered off into personal assertions, and I am really really bummed I missed the X- Files ep in question (anyone willing to loan their video? I'm taping this weeks mythology episodes, mutual favors could happen here...). However, I am a huge Highlander fan, and read lots and lots of the fan fiction written for it. And I have found it very striking that almost all (only 2 men come to mind) of the fanfic writers are women. SO, to bring this back to topic, Highlander is not in any explicit way feminist, although there are strong female characters when there are female characters at all; the main character is criticized for his overwhelming sense of chivalry (and he's some mighty tasty eye-candy as well...) and women respond very strongly to the show. This surprised the producers, BTW -- they were thinking male action show. The fanfiction, when it deals with the question of immortality, engages the questions of what it means to live forever, for all the people you know and love to die before you, to live with your guilt at your inability to prevent that, and survivors guilt, and other issues along these lines. These are the *questions* that drive things-- no one questions that the good immortals are well-educated, Renaissance people in their abilities and knowledges, wealthy folks who have had the opportunities to do so many many things. These are givens, on a backdrop of pain. SO, this is a long road to asking if there are gendered responses to the ideas of immortality, and the ways that might play out? I suspect that women are less concerned with never dying, with leaving an indelible mark on the world, but am curious what other people think. Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:45:21 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 2/1/99 9:31:13 PM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: >It still applies--I find it improbable that there will be a solution to death. -- to death, no. To aging, yes. >That is more scary to me than the natural part of life which death is. -- "natural" does not mean "desireable". It's natural to get smallpox and polio. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:03:25 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit It's true that in a killing fight the adrenaline rush often pushes fear out of your consciousness; I've experienced this myself. However, once it's over you pay the biological price for it -- the 'downer' is unpleasant. And there are some people who get addicted to the 'combat high'. You really wouldn't want to meet them, though. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:10:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <004d01be4e49$62c661a0$a3c9fcd0@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:13 PM 2/1/99 -0800, Joyce Jones wrote: >Death is the absolute. Hypothesize all you want from that point, but >shouldn't there be some realistic basis for the discussion? > >Yes, we're finding more about how cells age, meaning that with assistance >the human lifespan can be lengthened. But if you think science can find a >way to eliminate death I'm thinking you place too much faith in human >ability. > >Joyce > >I'd like to make a motion that we face reality. >Bob Newhart > What's the point of discussing scifi if we have to stick to what is realistic *now*? Sci fi is all about what if... I think there was a classic Star Trek episode that addressed the consequences of a civilization finding the key to immortality... anyone know the one I'm thinking of? I'm not sure, but as I recall, their planet became so overpopulated that they were forced to remain standing. They were constantly milling around. There wasn't even enough room to sit down... it was a vision of hell. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:15:23 -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: immortality again In-Reply-To: <36B6AC4D.D772255E@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:42 PM 2/1/99 -0800, Dave Samuelson wrote: >Is it really immortality you want or the voyeurist power to see what >happens, the elimination of the problems of ageing, and the right to pull >the plug out at your own choice? This whole discussion reminds me of >that classic fantasy (I know it won the Hugo as best sf) by Robert Bloch, >"That Hell-Bound Train." > I haven't read this... it sounds great thought. These are exactly the reasons I would want immortality. Especially wanting to see what happens. I'm mad that chances are I won't see us colonize another planet in my lifetime (just an example). I want to be around when we explore other solar systems, and find other lifeforms. Etc., etc. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:16:02 -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: BDG The Female Man / When It Changed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > Can somebody suggest a collection containing the story and currently > in print? As far as I know, none of the collections in which it has been printed are still available new. However, there are a number of used book services that are helpful. The Advanced Book Exchange (www.abebooks.com) lists 21 copies of *The Zanzibar Cat*, some for as little as $5 US; they also list about 100 copies of *Again, Dangerous Visions*. I could also photocopy the story for you as I have both of these books. :) -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Tori Amos -- From the Choirgirl Hotel "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:46:37 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-30 21:43:46 EST, you write: << PS: the "natural cycle" includes 60% infant mortality, and dying fairly young of infectious disease. Not to mention virtually permanent pregnancy or lactation for women. I don't notice anyone objecting to our elimination of _those_ 'natural' features of human life... 8-). >> This is NOT the "natural" cycle!! That is the cycle that happens when we don't know what the hell we are doing! Infant mortality happens because of lack of hygiene or care. Not because nature decrees it. That is not natural. If it were "natural" for a woman to be in "virtually permanent pregnancy or lactation" then women would have to be on constant birth control to keep her body from spontaneously becoming pregnant. It is the male viewpoint that such a thing is "natural"--not necessarily nature's viewpoint. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:55:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: ursula le guin event in washington (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:22:54 -0500 From: Amy Hanson I know most of you don't live near Seattle, but perhaps you have a feminist- or sf/f-leaning friend who does, and who might enjoy the following event. Amyh URSULA LEGUIN TO READ AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Respected feminist science fiction/fantasy writer Ursula K. LeGuin, author of LATHE OF HEAVEN, THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, THE DISPOSSESSED, the Earthsea trilogy, and STEERING THE CRAFT, will read from current work at the University of Washington's Kane Hall, Room 220, at 7 pm Saturday, February 27th. Admission is $4; the reading is a benefit for Clarion West Writers Workshop. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:00:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: books or stories on infertility Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hey y'all. i'm posting this query & would like to generate a bibliography on the following topic: infertility and/or adoption related themes titles are appreciated; titles & annotations especially appreciated. DO NOT REPLY TO THE LIST; reply to me DIRECTLY and i'll post the results to the list. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:58:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: feminist anime Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hey - i'm looking for feminist, lesbian, or gay anime citations - (japanese animation) - short or long films or video. any help? Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:18:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: immortality again Try this site if you dare, it calculates your day of death. I think the lifespan is underestimated, but it was fun anyway. Joyce http://www.deathclock.com/index2.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:02:44 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, sorry but death is not only natural to me but desirable. As for aging, big whoop. We all get older. Who cares how we look when we do so? That is agism and lookism. Dont want no part of that! Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 2/1/99 9:31:13 PM Mountain Standard Time, > bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: > > >It still applies--I find it improbable that there will be a solution to > death. > > -- to death, no. To aging, yes. > > >That is more scary to me than the natural part of life which death is. > > -- "natural" does not mean "desireable". It's natural to get smallpox and > polio. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:45:41 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 2/2/99 1:10:48 PM Mountain Standard Time, shegner@MAIL.SDSU.EDU writes: >What's the point of discussing scifi if we have to stick to what is realistic *now*? Sci fi is all about what if.. >> -- if SF authors could _really_ predict the future, we'd be rich, not writing this stuff... 8-). Actually, SF tends to be far too _conservative_ about science/technology, and in selective ways at that. Eg., 50's SF notoriously concentrated on bigger and better rockets, and failed for the most part to anticipate progress in computers. Future computers were going to be bigger and bigger, the size of whole planets... instead of smaller and smaller. I suspect most contemporary SF tends to overconcentrate on computers and neglect biotechnology. Computers are just adding machines manaque, when you come down to it. Genetic engineering will change the basic constants of human existance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:54:25 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 2/2/99 3:49:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: >It is the male viewpoint that such a thing is "natural"--not necessarily nature's viewpoint.> -- nature doesn't have a viewpoint. Only conscious entities have those. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:53:50 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 2/2/99 3:49:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: >This is NOT the "natural" cycle!! That is the cycle that happens when we don't know what the hell we are doing! >> In "We Who Are About To..." Russ put it this way: "Industrialization is civilization". Notice I said "natural", not natural. We can prevent most infectious disease now because we know about bacteria and viruses. Absent that knowledge -- a very recent phenomenon -- that's exactly what happens. And if you have an infant mortality rate that high, you have to have a very high birth-rate or the population declines and eventually becomes extinct. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:03:34 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: Changing Attitudes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Last year, an SF (time-travel) book of mine titled "Island in the Sea of Time" was published. One of the protagonists is a black lesbian Coast Guard officer, which caused a good deal of editorial heartburn -- enough that I had to find a different publisher for the book than the one originally scheduled. But... the Coast Guard Academy in New London has made the book required course material and asked me to come and give a lecture. See? Attitudes _do_ change... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:11:51 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 2/2/99 6:03:47 PM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: >Well, sorry but death is not only natural to me but desirable. -- de gustibus non disputandem est. >As for aging, big whoop. We all get older. Who cares how we look when we do so? That is agism and lookism. -- I'm also a wettist. That is, I think water is wet... 8-). Also, of course, the older you get the more you hurt and the less you can do. Let's put it this way. Say, with SFnal freedom, there's a simple inexpensive treatment which will 'unage' you to 22, and then keep you there, in good health, indefinitely. Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the human future to those who didn't. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:22:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Immortality... Content-Type: text I've not really been following this thread, but I've caught the last few emails, and just wanted to mention that for those interested in SF that deals really well with immortality, check out the Hyperion books by Dan Simmons (Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, Rise of Endymion). Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:35:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the human future to those who didn't.<< And how much will this immortality treatment cost? Will it end up that only the rich be able to afford it? Who decides who gets to be immortal? In a Swiftian vein, what if it takes 15 third-world babies ground up into a thin gruel to make this immortality treatment? Is that affordable? Is it worth the cost? How will this planet support an immortal race that continues to breed? How long will it take before earth's carrying-capacity is reached? Freddie Baer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:52:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: immortality forever (was: immortality again) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > And how much will this immortality treatment cost? Will it end up > that only the rich be able to afford it? Who decides who gets to be > immortal? > > In a Swiftian vein, what if it takes 15 third-world babies ground up > into a thin gruel to make this immortality treatment? Is that > affordable? Is it worth the cost? > > How will this planet support an immortal race that continues to > breed? How long will it take before earth's carrying-capacity is > reached? And are these not the questions that are oft-asked by the authors who are writing about this? I wouldn't call it a feminist work, but this is something that Kim Stanley Robinson touches on in his Mars trilogy. In that case, it's not even with respect to immortality--just increasing the lifespan by several-fold. He mentions it also in _Icehenge_. Joan Slonczewski deals with longevity also in _Daughters of Elysium_. None of these books, nor any that I've read (that I can think of), make an attempt to answer these questions. They tend more toward pointing out the problems that would arise, were we to have the option of much longer lifespans--or lifespans approaching immortality. While I'm all for conserving our resources, living for future generations, loving the Earth, being in harmony with nature and the universe, etc. (son of a couple of hippies? yeah...), I would really like to see what the future holds. I don't see how my life is going to be long enough for me to see everything that I want to see, learn everything that I want to learn, or experience all that I would like to experience. If you've seen the movie Bladerunner, you'll recognize the image that I have in my mind--it's Ray, at the end, sorrowful and desperate because he wants more to life. Four years is all he and the other Nexus 6 had. Who's to say that twenty (or thirty or a hundred) times that is really enough? -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com Try free *nix: http://www.netbsd.org/, http://www.freebsd.org/, http://www.linux.org/, http://www.openbsd.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:59:02 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 2/2/99 7:49:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, fbaer@WESTED.ORG writes: >And how much will this immortality treatment cost? Will it end up that only the rich be able to afford it? Who decides who gets to be immortal? -- the original post specified a cheap, easily available treatment. >In a Swiftian vein, what if it takes 15 third-world babies ground up into a thin gruel to make this immortality treatment? Is that affordable? Is it worth the cost? -- I wouldn't, but a lot of people would. It's demonstrable that many people will kill rather than die. >How will this planet support an immortal race that continues to breed? -- data indicates that birth-rates fall whenever women have the education and social room to chose something else to do with their lives. (Eg., the birth rate in Italy is now at a level that will see a 50% reduction in the population over the next generation or two.) Presumably, a cure for aging would cut the reproduction rate even faster. After all, if you don't have to hurry, why not wait? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:21:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:11 PM 2/02/99 EST, you wrote: >-- I'm also a wettist. That is, I think water is wet... 8-). Also, of >course, the older you get the more you hurt and the less you can do. But this happens to us all! Honestly, this entire argument is ridiculous. Everyone here is eventually going to get old (hopefully) and die. Yes, you're going to get aches and pains; yes, you'll become less mobile as you age. This is natural. Trying to fight it, quite simply, is one of the most useless and futile things you could ever hope to do. That's why we have to enjoy our relative youth while we still can. Otherwise, we end up hspending thousands of dollars on worthless cosmetic surgery and end up looking like Catherine Helmond in "Brazil". >Let's put it this way. Say, with SFnal freedom, there's a simple inexpensive >treatment which will 'unage' you to 22, and then keep you there, in good >health, indefinitely. > >Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? >Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the >human future to those who didn't. Wonderful! So then the planet gets even more overpopulated than it already is. And don't try telling me that it will then become law for the "unaged" people to have their tubes tied, because nobody is going to agree to this as long as we still have democracy (people always want to have kids, even if they know about overpopulation). So the planet is now teeming with millions and millions of people, none of whom ever die. Why do the words "Soylent Green" keep coming to mind in this scenario? Seriously, there is a reason why human beings are not designed to last. I'm not a religious person in any traditional sense, but I do believe that the human body is designed in the way it is for a good reason. The natural termination date is there to ensure that the older generation eventually leaves the future to the ones who deserve it, the next generation. To want to steal the future of the youth from them because we think we can do it better - or simply because we're afraid of getting old and dying - is selfishness of the highest order. Hasn't the older generation screwed things up enough in one lifetime? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:39:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Changing Attitudes In-Reply-To: <521017d.36b7ae76@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > > Last year, an SF (time-travel) book of mine titled "Island in the Sea of Time" > was published. > > One of the protagonists is a black lesbian Coast Guard officer, which caused a > good deal of editorial heartburn -- enough that I had to find a different > publisher for the book than the one originally scheduled. > That is SO stupid ... I loved Marian Alston. > But... the Coast Guard Academy in New London has made the book required course > material and asked me to come and give a lecture. > Excellent! By the way, I understand that some lesbians discharged from the regular services have found homnes as Coast Guard (or was it National Guard? No references handy) medics etc. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:41:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Freddie Baer wrote: > In a Swiftian vein, what if it takes 15 third-world babies ground up > into a thin gruel to make this immortality treatment? Is that > affordable? Is it worth the cost? > Read Norman Spinrad's BUG JACK BARRON. Science fiction in 1968; a contemporary thriller 20 years later; soon to be a historical medical thriller.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:43:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902030421.WAA55048@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > >Let's put it this way. Say, with SFnal freedom, there's a simple inexpensive > >treatment which will 'unage' you to 22, and then keep you there, in good > >health, indefinitely. > > > >Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? > >Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the > >human future to those who didn't. > Suppose there were a drug that kept you physically 22 for 18 years - then you withered up and died. Would anybody take it? How about supermodels, star athletes, etc?> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:17:18 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/99 5:03:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: << That is agism and lookism >> I enjoyed being young, but my sister and I agree that if we had known how much fun being old is we would have started to age sooner. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:20:40 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/99 6:49:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, fbaer@WESTED.ORG writes: << earth's carrying-capacity is >> We there, dear. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:07:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: worthless old people Santanico said: >>The natural termination date is there to ensure that the older generation eventually leaves the future to the ones who deserve it, the next generation. To want to steal the future of the youth from them because we think we can do it better - or simply because we're afraid of getting old and dying - is selfishness of the highest order. Hasn't the older generation screwed things up enough in one lifetime?<< Let me see, how many ways do I disagree with this? No, the future does not belong to the young, it belongs to whoever is there at the time. In spite of Pepsi generation advertising, old does not equal worthless, corrupt, ugly or incompetent. Old people think, create, innovate, communicate, teach, love, live and contribute. A picture painted or a book written or a floor mopped by a 75 year old has as much or as little value as the same work done by a 25 year old. We are supposed to be forward looking people on this list. Let's try to open our minds to the concept that a person is alive as long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. Mortality means that people die. We may hope that means that we will live a long life then die very old, but we may die at any age. Old people are no more in the process of dying than the young are. Our common ground is that we are all mortal, whatever our age or any other difference we might choose to make one person seem of more worth than another. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:46:58 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: worthless old people? More like complete misinterpretations. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:07 AM 3/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >Let me see, how many ways do I disagree with this? No, the future does not >belong to the young, it belongs to whoever is there at the time. In spite >of Pepsi generation advertising, old does not equal worthless, corrupt, ugly >or incompetent. Old people think, create, innovate, communicate, teach, >love, live and contribute. A picture painted or a book written or a floor >mopped by a 75 year old has as much or as little value as the same work done >by a 25 year old. We are supposed to be forward looking people on this >list. Let's try to open our minds to the concept that a person is alive as >long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. Sigh. Once again I'm completely misinterpreted. When exactly did I say that old people were worthless, corrupt, ugly or incompetent? When, in fact, did I even imply this? If you can't own up to the fact that the generation before each new one screwed things up in their own way, then you're living in a dream world. It's the nature of things to change, and usually the catalysts of that change are the younger generation, or so history has shown us. How many of the older generation were all that beloved of the peace-and-love hippies of the Sixties? How many ex-hippies these days now like to bitch about how young people don't appreciate all they've done for them? How many old guard feminists, for that matter, now say to me that I wouldn't understand a damn thing about feminism because I wasn't around at the time of "The Female Eunuch"'s first printing? I know at least one person on this list who's expressed that sentiment. The point I was attempting to make, unsuccessfully it seems, is that attitudes change with every generation, more often for better than worse. If the older generation were to live forever, society probably would end up stagnating. Imagine if everyone from the Victorian era were still around today. Chances are, we would still be living in an ersatz Victoriana. Things probably will change within our lifetimes, but not everything will. Older people are usually naturally resistant to change, and often try to keep things the way they are (particularly the ones in a position of a lot of power - do you really think THEY want anything to change?); so yes, I feel perfectly free to state that it is the next generation who will end up changing society. As I said before, look at the Sixties generation, the ones who managed to abolish the majority of 1950s repression and hypocrisy in a single decade - without that cultural, political and sexual revolution, would we have a lot of the freedoms we have today? This, of course, does not mean I'm advocating killing off all elderly people in a gas chamber or something. Jesus... >Mortality means that people die. We may hope that means that we will live a >long life then die very old, but we may die at any age. Old people are no >more in the process of dying than the young are. Except that they're usually much _closer_ to it than young people are. But for the sake of being politically correct we'll just forget that right now. >Our common ground is that >we are all mortal, whatever our age or any other difference we might choose >to make one person seem of more worth than another. Again, when the hell did I say that old people were worth less than younger people? You're making me out to be some kind of anti-elderly-folk Nazi just because I stated the irrefutable that young people will have more of a hand in the future than the old, simply by virtue of the fact that there'll be more of them than us. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:33:17 -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: <199902030421.WAA55048@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Exactly Santanico, glad I am not the only one interested in death, the sooner the better (especially for the senate republicans, but I digress). And old age, we should all be lucky to be able to reach the aches and pains of advanced age. Otherwise, bringing up a ST episode since someone else did, maybe the notion of killing off the elderly after a certain age may not be such a bad idea. It certainly would help put a dent in certain populations(like the senate*evil grin*). Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > At 09:11 PM 2/02/99 EST, you wrote: > > >-- I'm also a wettist. That is, I think water is wet... 8-). Also, of > >course, the older you get the more you hurt and the less you can do. > > But this happens to us all! Honestly, this entire argument is ridiculous. > Everyone here is eventually going to get old (hopefully) and die. Yes, > you're going to get aches and pains; yes, you'll become less mobile as you > age. This is natural. Trying to fight it, quite simply, is one of the most > useless and futile things you could ever hope to do. That's why we have to > enjoy our relative youth while we still can. Otherwise, we end up hspending > thousands of dollars on worthless cosmetic surgery and end up looking like > Catherine Helmond in "Brazil". > > >Let's put it this way. Say, with SFnal freedom, there's a simple inexpensive > >treatment which will 'unage' you to 22, and then keep you there, in good > >health, indefinitely. > > > >Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? > >Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the > >human future to those who didn't. > > Wonderful! So then the planet gets even more overpopulated than it already > is. And don't try telling me that it will then become law for the "unaged" > people to have their tubes tied, because nobody is going to agree to this as > long as we still have democracy (people always want to have kids, even if > they know about overpopulation). So the planet is now teeming with millions > and millions of people, none of whom ever die. Why do the words "Soylent > Green" keep coming to mind in this scenario? > > Seriously, there is a reason why human beings are not designed to last. I'm > not a religious person in any traditional sense, but I do believe that the > human body is designed in the way it is for a good reason. The natural > termination date is there to ensure that the older generation eventually > leaves the future to the ones who deserve it, the next generation. To want > to steal the future of the youth from them because we think we can do it > better - or simply because we're afraid of getting old and dying - is > selfishness of the highest order. Hasn't the older generation screwed things > up enough in one lifetime? > > Sant. > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 07:56:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:33 AM 3/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >Exactly Santanico, glad I am not the only one interested in death, the >sooner the better (especially for the senate republicans, but I >digress). Um, well, that wasn't exactly what I was trying to say. Hell, I don't want to expire before my natural termination date (I'm like a tin of canned ham in that respect ;)), so you couldn't say I'm "interested" in death. I prefer to just accept it as something that is inevitable, and get on as best I can with the life I have. I accept that I will eventually die, and I'm pretty much okay with the idea, to tell you the truth, but I do hope to live a long and hopefully happy life. >And old age, we should all be lucky to be able to reach the >aches and pains of advanced age. This is correct. I mean, hey - look at the alternative. Pulling a James Dean doesn't really appeal to me as a valid option. >Otherwise, bringing up a ST episode since >someone else did, maybe the notion of killing off the elderly after a >certain age may not be such a bad idea. It certainly would help put a dent >in certain populations(like the senate*evil grin*). Ack! No, no! That wasn't what I was trying to say at all!! I just meant that we should all consider ourselves lucky to be alive even for this short period we have. We should cherish the natural time we have, and not get grabby and want eternity all to ourselves. We should accept that we're going to die, and just let nature take its course, to use a very old phrase. The next generation will eventually take the cultural and societal reins, but this will happen all by itself anyway. I most definitely was NOT advocating the mass genocide of old people! Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:08:52 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902031356.HAA26080@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > >Otherwise, bringing up a ST episode since > >someone else did, maybe the notion of killing off the elderly after a > >certain age may not be such a bad idea. It certainly would help put a dent > >in certain populations(like the senate*evil grin*). > Right now the Senate is the closest thing we have to a voice of reason and moderation and politeness in government. As long as it is Silent-generation dominated (that's me!) it will still be that way. When it becomes Boomer dominated, well, look at the polarization & self-righteousness of the Boomer-dominated House! But then, wait till the far less ideological and more pragmatic (like my daughers!) GenX moves into the House. For every thing there is a season...and a time for every purpose under heaven.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:19:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Severna Park on Event Horizon Comments: To: suzanne feldman In-Reply-To: <36A093CC.3777@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, suzanne feldman wrote: > If you get a chance, check out my short story, HARBINGERS, on Ellen > Datlow's EVENT HORIZON online 'zine. Covers all the Feminist SF ground > you can throw at it . I'd love to hear your feedback. Here's what > Ellen had to say... > Well, it seems they change regularly. I visited the site February 3rd and found no sign of the story. Sigh. Too late. > > Check out the rest of the EH site while you're there. Subscriptions > arew free, and Ellen publishes some of the strongest new SF around. But the web page is red or white printing on black. Instant eyestrain. The warrant on my eyes ran out after 50 years. :{> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:08:24 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Politeness in government-WOW never thought that would be applied to the hypocritical sensational-loving power-mad congress. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Pat wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > > > >Otherwise, bringing up a ST episode since > > >someone else did, maybe the notion of killing off the elderly after a > > >certain age may not be such a bad idea. It certainly would help put a dent > > >in certain populations(like the senate*evil grin*). > > > Right now the Senate is the closest thing we have to a voice of > reason and moderation and politeness in government. As long as it is > Silent-generation dominated (that's me!) it will still be that way. When > it becomes Boomer dominated, well, look at the polarization & > self-righteousness of the Boomer-dominated House! > But then, wait till the far less ideological and more pragmatic > (like my daughers!) GenX moves into the House. > > For every thing there is a season...and a time for every purpose > under heaven.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:28:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: identifying a le guin short story? Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hey y'all - can anyone identify this le guin short story? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I wonder if you can help me. Years ago I read a LeGuin short story about a spider who lives in an abandoned palace and tries to spin webs that will sparkle like the royal jewels. In the end, she is cast into the garden, where her ordinary web catches the dew which then sparkles in the sun. When I found it, it was in a child's picture book, but I can't for the life of me think of the title. Can you help? Doug Jackson -- "Even in the matter of work a man has to learn that he is not his own, but has a Master, whom he must not serve as if he were a hard one." - George MacDonald, "The Laird's Inheritance" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:12:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: immortality again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Didn't Aldous Huxley suggest this in Brave New World? Pat wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > > > >Let's put it this way. Say, with SFnal freedom, there's a simple inexpensive > > >treatment which will 'unage' you to 22, and then keep you there, in good > > >health, indefinitely. > > > > > >Honestly now, how many people would turn it down? Some? Sure. Many? > > >Probably not. And the ones who'd turn it down would then die off, leaving the > > >human future to those who didn't. > > > Suppose there were a drug that kept you physically 22 for 18 > years - then you withered up and died. Would anybody take it? How about > supermodels, star athletes, etc?> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:40:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: immortality again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I meant to comment on that throwaway line myself when I received it. Like the SFRA listserv, I take it that this one centers on sf, fantasy, and utopian literature. Sf does not mean to me that "anything is possible" Examining a topic sfnally, I'd like to think we have an eye on what could be "realistic" now, then, or anytime. Pure wishfulfillment normally qualifies as fantasy to me, in which I include not only literary conventions associated with fantasy but also what seems to have only desire going for it. Sf seeks a "plausible" escape route. All of these terms are qualified, of course, not only by correcting for shortsightedness as Steve suggests, but also by technical (both scientific and literary) skill in crafting an answer. When I was 19 I was angry at the prospect of death, but fear was surely a component as well. Sf has always been to some extent my substitute for not being able to see what happens after I'm gone. It's a very unreliable guide, of course, but in this age of the simulacra that should not be too much of a drawback. "S.M. Stirling" wrote: > In a message dated 2/2/99 1:10:48 PM Mountain Standard Time, > shegner@MAIL.SDSU.EDU writes: > > >What's the point of discussing scifi if we have to stick to what is realistic > *now*? Sci fi is all about what if.. >> > > -- if SF authors could _really_ predict the future, we'd be rich, not writing > this stuff... 8-). > > Actually, SF tends to be far too _conservative_ about science/technology, and > in selective ways at that. > > Eg., 50's SF notoriously concentrated on bigger and better rockets, and failed > for the most part to anticipate progress in computers. Future computers were > going to be bigger and bigger, the size of whole planets... instead of smaller > and smaller. > > I suspect most contemporary SF tends to overconcentrate on computers and > neglect biotechnology. > > Computers are just adding machines manaque, when you come down to it. Genetic > engineering will change the basic constants of human existance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:51:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: identifying a le guin short story? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I can't swear to the spelling, but it's called Leese Webster. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Laura Quilter wrote: > hey y'all - can anyone identify this le guin short story? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > I wonder if you can help me. Years ago I read a LeGuin short story > about a spider who lives in an abandoned palace and tries to spin webs > that will sparkle like the royal jewels. In the end, she is cast into > the garden, where her ordinary web catches the dew which then sparkles > in the sun. When I found it, it was in a child's picture book, but I > can't for the life of me think of the title. Can you help? > > Doug Jackson > > -- > "Even in the matter of work a man has to learn that he is > not his own, but has a Master, whom he must not serve as > if he were a hard one." - George MacDonald, "The Laird's Inheritance" > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:52:06 -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: worthless old people MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce Jones wrote: a person is alive as > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:08:36 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <36B6AC4D.D772255E@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > Is it really immortality you want or the voyeurist power to see what > happens, the elimination of the problems of ageing, and the right to > pull the plug out at your own choice? Probably both. To me, "seeing what happens" is a part of living forever. These two things kind of imply one another, in my opinion. Besides, don't you see what happens during your regular lifetime? Is that "voyeristic" too? >This whole discussion reminds me of that classic fantasy (I know it > won the Hugo as best sf) by Robert Bloch, "That Hell-Bound Train." Hmm. have not read that one. What is it about? Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:47:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality by way of Highlander.... Comments: To: Rudy Leon In-Reply-To: <199902021605.LAA20649@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I used to watch Highlander and liked it, too. In fact, I think that show was what made me think that being immortal would be really neat in the first place. I agree that the show has a few powerful female characters (even though I can't stand that fake-blond-almost-shaved-head Highlander's girlfriend -- I believe her name is Raven) while it has little if any specifically feminist agenda present. > the main character is criticized > for his overwhelming sense of chivalry (and he's some mighty tasty > eye-candy as well...) and women respond very strongly to the > show. This surprised the producers, BTW -- they were thinking > male action show. I can see why it happened. IMHO, the show has too much "costume drama" feel to it, which sometimes borders on sappinness. It's too much "knight in a shining armor" stuff to be popular with guys -- and women who are not into romantic novels (not that I have anything against romantic novels or the people who read them -- it's just not everyone likes it). > The fanfiction, when it deals with the question of immortality, > engages the questions of what it means to live forever, for all the > people you know and love to die before you, to live with your guilt at > your inability to prevent that, and survivors guilt, and other issues > along these lines. Yes, i think that's the main problem with immortality -- deling with loneliness. However, it is possible to outlive everyone you know even without living forever. It may not be much fun, I agree, but if people can deal with that in thirty years -- when they have no choice -- it might be possible to deal with it over three thousand years as well. Especially if those people around you die peacefully, and not like in a concentration camp -- the "survivor's guilt" might be less severe. You just accept it, as you accept any death. At least that's what I think. I guess what I am trying to say -- I won't think that living forever would be something all happy and painless. There is always a price to pay. I just think it stil worth it. Even if not for everyone. > These are the *questions* that drive things-- no > one questions that the good immortals are well-educated, > Renaissance people in their abilities and knowledges, wealthy folks > who have had the opportunities to do so many many things. These > are givens, on a backdrop of pain. Isn't that true for life in general -- eternal or not? Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:00:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read this book for the first time a couple of years ago (and not since, so I may be a little rusty on it, although I am holding it right now). I read it about the time I read "Woman on The Edge of Time" (Marge Percy) and "Egalia's Daughters" (Gerd Brantenberg). I suppose all of these books can be considered somewhat "dated"... but so can any classic dating all the way back to the Iliad and beyond. What makes a "dated" book worth reading is its relevancy to human nature and society, and I think that Russ' book is VERY relevant (as are the other two). People still read Aldous Huxley and George Orwell and don't discuss their "dated-ness", although I would make the arguement that they are MORE "dated". Even though it has been a couple of years, just sitting here and thinking about it I am filling with images of my favorite scenes, the artistry and the humor of the book (and, okay, the preaching, too). One thing I did want to mention was that when I lent the book out to a male friend a couple of years ago, not only did he not "get it", but he was really upset about the whole "Davy" thing (among many others), Davy being the boy toy that is a "lovely limb of the house". I found these scenes extremely amusing, because the concept of a beautiful female android to serve the needs of her (male) master is such a stupid stereotype... and the language that Russ uses in those scenes is very loving. Very loving... but unmistakably referring to a completely pure sex object. Keep up the great discussions! Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:54:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: feminist anime In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Laura Quilter wrote: > hey - i'm looking for feminist, lesbian, or gay anime citations - > (japanese animation) - short or long films or video. any help? _Aeon Flux_ -- the MTV series from a few years ago. I don't know if its creators intended it to be feminist, but I think it is. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:04:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > Well, sorry but death is not only natural to me but desirable. As for > aging, big whoop. We all get older. Who cares how we look when we do so? > That is agism and lookism. Dont want no part of that! This is why I don't think that a "cure to death" would lead to overpopulation -- some people would want to die anyway. Which they should be allowed to do, I think. A possibility does not have to be a requirement. As long as they don't try to prevent others from doing it. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:17:31 -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: immortality by way of Highlander.... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:47 PM 2/3/99 -0600, Marina wrote: >I agree that the show has a few powerful female characters (even >though I can't stand that fake-blond-almost-shaved-head Highlander's >girlfriend -- I believe her name is Raven) while it has little if >any specifically feminist agenda present. It's Amanda. Raven is the name of her spin off series. I haven't decided if I hate it yet. I just know I like the original series 100% more. >> The fanfiction, when it deals with the question of immortality, >> engages the questions of what it means to live forever, for all the >> people you know and love to die before you, to live with your guilt at >> your inability to prevent that, and survivors guilt, and other issues >> along these lines. Well, the interesting thing about the survivors guilt point is, foreaxmple, being an immortal who survived a huge disaster. Amanda supposedly lived through going down with the Titanic. (How trendy.) > >Yes, i think that's the main problem with immortality -- deling with >loneliness. However, it is possible to outlive everyone you know even >without living forever. It may not be much fun, I agree, but if people >can deal with that in thirty years -- when they have no choice -- it might >be possible to deal with it over three thousand years as well. My grandmother lived to be about 95 (it may have been older). She outlived her six syblings, all of whom were younger than she was, and all of her friends. He children and grandchildren were still around, but the loss of the last of her sisters, the one who shared her house with her, was the final straw. She just stopped wanting to live, I think. Her decline was very rapid. My point is I don't think even mere can really deal with losing all of those they love... at least, not all of them can. Frankl springs to mind of one who did manage to carry on and find meaning. It's funny, because you mentioned below that perhaps peaceful deaths would be easier to accept than those in a concentration camp, and my examples above are of the opposite! :) Sophia >Especially >if those people around you die peacefully, and not like in a concentration >camp -- the "survivor's guilt" might be less severe. You just accept it, >as you accept any death. At least that's what I think. > >I guess what I am trying to say -- I won't think that living forever would >be something all happy and painless. There is always a price to pay. I >just think it stil worth it. Even if not for everyone. > >> These are the *questions* that drive things-- no >> one questions that the good immortals are well-educated, >> Renaissance people in their abilities and knowledges, wealthy folks >> who have had the opportunities to do so many many things. These >> are givens, on a backdrop of pain. > >Isn't that true for life in general -- eternal or not? > >Marina > >http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:24:56 -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: immortality again In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:04 PM 2/3/99 -0600, Marina wrote: >On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > >> Well, sorry but death is not only natural to me but desirable. As for >> aging, big whoop. We all get older. Who cares how we look when we do so? >> That is agism and lookism. Dont want no part of that! > >This is why I don't think that a "cure to death" would lead to >overpopulation -- some people would want to die anyway. Which they should >be allowed to do, I think. A possibility does not have to be a >requirement. As long as they don't try to prevent others from doing it. > >Marina Maybe the society would require that those who chose to have children reliquish their right to immortality... Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:04:50 -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: immortality again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" My biggest fears about aging have _nothing_ to do with how I'll LOOK when I get older, and everything to do with things like losing mobility, losing hearing, etc., etc. I agree; who cares how we look? I do care about my body's functionality, though! -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Bertina Miller [mailto:bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 5:03 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] immortality again Well, sorry but death is not only natural to me but desirable. As for aging, big whoop. We all get older. Who cares how we look when we do so? That is agism and lookism. Dont want no part of that! Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:09:19 -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: immortality by way of Highlander.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" *snip* > It's funny, > because you mentioned below that perhaps peaceful deaths would be easier to > accept than those in a concentration camp, and my examples above are of the > opposite! :) > Sophia ___________________________ My guess would be because with a larger proportion of non-peaceful deaths, there's someone or something to BLAME for the death. That can keep survivors going; there's something they can do to make the death of their loved one MEAN something. Makes sense to me, you hear about it all the time. If all your loved ones die peacefully of old age, there's not much you can do about that. -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:22:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902030421.WAA55048@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > Everyone here is eventually going to get old (hopefully) and die. Yes, > you're going to get aches and pains; yes, you'll become less mobile as you > age. This is natural. Trying to fight it, quite simply, is one of the most > useless and futile things you could ever hope to do. Well, I can tell you one thing -- 50-year-old women in America are healthier and better looking than 25-year-old married women in my country. So apparently, "fighting it" is not as useless and futile. Despite all the continuous technology-bashing in this society, no one (including the most vigorous bashers) would to go even as "natural" as to stop using, say, hand cream to prevent their hands from cracking and peeling (as they naturally tend to do once you pass the teen age), or soap (wash your hands with sand, anyone?). Remember the Handmaid's Tale? The women who would hide butter in their shoes to use it as cream after the "unnatural ways to prevent aging" were banished? Is that the ideal? A lot of people are not going to like this, but there is no principal difference between hand cream and the hormonal anti-age treatments. And condemning the latter while using the former (along with calcium supplements, vitamins, and sunblocks) is simply hypocritical. Who said that brittle bones are less "natural" than the crowfeet? Despite all the talk against the anti-aging treatments, I've never seen even a 30-year-old woman around here who'd "look her age" (deep wrinkles around eyes and mouth, half-grey hair, age spots, and peeling-red hands, which is how you normally look by 27 -- or by twenty-three, if you have kids) -- not even in trailer parks. So whatever people think about ethical issues of cosmetic industry, apparently everyone uses it, in most cases, without even thinking. On the question of overpopulation due to immortality -- 95% percent of human population in the world does not have access to aspirin and basic antibiotics. So even if the "immortality pills" would cost 5 cents a package, the whole population of the Earth won't go immortal overnight. Finally, concerning the "finitness" of natural resources -- hordes of food are destroyed in Europe every years just to prevent prices from going too low, along with all the laws preventing European farmers from _growing too much food_. That practice peacefully co-exists with the starvation of millions of people in the third world. Just think about that -- even the farmers of such a small tiny overpopulated place as Europe are capable of feeding more people than they can handle. There are laws to prevent them from growing the "excess" -- and there is still too much of it to keep. Without these measures, European farmers alone could probably easily feed the the rest of the world and then some. And that's only one continent. So where exactly the idea of the "lack of resources" comes from? The first-world economy is too messed up to handle what it produces -- with that I agree. You don't want Western farmers to go broke, so you'd rather destroy extra food than sell it -- so what that has to do with the Earth "natural capacities"? So far, this looks more like -- the planet is too fruitful for its own good. Seriously, while there are mountains of oranges sprinkled with acid along the roads of Italy every year -- I will never believe that any kind of "famine from overpopulation" is a threat to Earth in the next thousand years. This is just my opinion. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:29:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Female Man -- what's your favorite quote? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" When I was reading it I kept wanting to get the highlighter so I could go back and find the bits that were just perfect so I could quote them later. I enjoyed the quote that Susan typed in of her favorite part. What were your favorite lines? Of course I didn't stop and mark my favorite parts, nor do I have the book right in front of me... One line I remember particularly was about how she used to want approval, now she just says "move over!" I think it was in the same section that Susan quoted, as a matter of fact, the part that's the big payoff. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:39:20 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again -- Brave New World In-Reply-To: <36B8837D.A34C8E8A@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > Didn't Aldous Huxley suggest this in Brave New World? Well, _that_ society was very big on "enjoying whatever short time you have and then clearing the space for the next generation". I think the "acceptance of death" was like the most basic principle of living -- with kids taken to play in the "house of dying" to get used to the idea, looking forward to the experience, and all that. In that book, people are born, raised, utilized to the degree of their usefullnes, and eventually recycled -- and extremely happy with it. I wonder if that's what the people who think that "death is a great and important thing" feel like. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:02:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: worthless old people In-Reply-To: <36B8A8E5.5954@people-link.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations (or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality (other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that it's not something we'd want anyway. Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider positive by any means). Marina On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > Joyce Jones wrote: > a person is alive as > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > Susan > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:14:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kristina Solheim Subject: Question... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm a bi feminist sff writer and have been writing short stories (and maybe eventually novels) which contain elements promoting gay awareness. Does anyone have any information about or experience with sff markets that are gay-friendly (specifically short story markets besides the _Bending the Landscape_ anthologies)? Please feel free to reply in private email if you think this is off-topic. I have one short story whose main characters include a straight woman and her two gay male roommates which is ready to be sent out. But mainly I'm looking for any advice from readers and writers out there about feminist-friendly and/or gay-friendly markets. Thanks! And I apologize if this is off-topic. Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:24:16 -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: worthless old people MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Julian May's books don't seem to treat immortality negatively (that I can remember). There's also Heinlein's future history stuff; I don't think it dwelled on negative aspects (it's been a while since I read them, though). In both of those cases, though, its a few families that have an "immortality gene" (in Heinlein's case, it was bred into them over generations, in May's case, it just kinda happened; a mutation that bred true, if I recall correctly). May also talks about "rejuvination" in later books, though, too, which is basically a reversal of the aging process. The negatives were dealt with by strict breeding laws and FTL travel, which allowed unlimited expansion room. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Marina [mailto:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 3:03 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] worthless old people Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations (or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality (other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that it's not something we'd want anyway. Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider positive by any means). Marina On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > Joyce Jones wrote: > a person is alive as > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > Susan > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:21:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: Question... In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990203151445.009fc100@solheimk.pobox.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Kristina Solheim wrote: > I'm a bi feminist sff writer and have been writing short stories (and maybe > eventually novels) which contain elements promoting gay awareness. Does > anyone have any information about or experience with sff markets that are > gay-friendly (specifically short story markets besides the _Bending the > Landscape_ anthologies)? Please feel free to reply in private email if you > think this is off-topic. Circlet Press, which publishes anthologies of erotic science fiction, has an imprint called The Ultraviolet Library which published anthologies of gay and lesbian themed science fiction. More information is on the web page at www.circlet.com. I interned at Circlet for a while, and the books are really quite good. Request a copy of the writer's guidelines before submitting anything, though. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "We bring the answer with us. All the traditions, all the paths, teach us to see what is already there. That is the central Mystery of Mystery that I had never convinced Miriam of. The secret is that there is no secret." --Rosemary Edghill, "Speak Daggers to Her" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:26:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality by way of Highlander.... In-Reply-To: <199902032116.NAA25284@mail.sdsu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Sophia Hegner wrote: > My grandmother lived to be about 95 (it may have been older). She outlived > her six syblings, all of whom were younger than she was, and all of her > friends. He children and grandchildren were still around, but the loss of > the last of her sisters, the one who shared her house with her, was the > final straw. She just stopped wanting to live, I think. Her decline was > very rapid. My point is I don't think even mere can really deal with losing > all of those they love... at least, not all of them can. Frankl springs to > mind of one who did manage to carry on and find meaning. It's funny, > because you mentioned below that perhaps peaceful deaths would be easier to > accept than those in a concentration camp, and my examples above are of the > opposite! :) I see what you're saying. It reminded me of my great-grandmother (that is what I've heard to her). She lived to be 91, and died only because she fell and broke her skull. They told me that she often complained how she wanted to finally go and be with God -- and at the same time, every time she'd get sick, she'd start praying to live "for just one more day". In general, i think outliving everyone at old age might be difficult also because of the limited possibility to have a "full life". One's siblings and old friends die -- and there is little chance to form new relationships. Besides, due to the physical limitations, it is often difficult to, say, go travelling or enjoy some other activities that are available to single people who are in a better physical condition. Finally, i think a big part of frustration comes from a simple inability to take care of oneself independently. I mean, if you cannot even go to the bathroom without assistance that would make anyone wish to "finally have some peace". At the same time, some people are born virtually helpless in physical sense, while they still develop their intellectual abilities and enjoy life maybe even more than some healthy individuals, so maybe it is possible for elderly people as well. In the end, I think older people may "wish to die" simply because they are expected to. A woman I know is teaching Creative Writing and Art Therapy classes for people over 90. A couple days ago, she showed me an amazing poem written by a 95-year-old man. i think if i can write poetry at 95, I won't want to go even if I have to be spoon-fed and wear diapers. In other words, I think it would be easier for people who live longer (or forever, for that matter) to deal with the losses of their friends and such if they have the opportunity to make new friends and have new experiences. Which does not necessarily mean they should stay "young" as long as they can stay functional and independent and not being expected to die. IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:43:02 -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: worthless old people In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Not Sci Fi, not feminist, and not exactly the most deep book, but Anne Rice's _The Mummy_ is a positive look at immortality. I think. Its been like ten years since I read it. Sophia At 05:02 PM 2/3/99 -0600, you wrote: >Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times >the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations >(or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science >fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality >(other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science >fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes >Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that >it's not something we'd want anyway. > >Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in >science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count >Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other >immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider >positive by any means). > >Marina > >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow >Woman wrote: > > >> Joyce Jones wrote: >> a person is alive as >> > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. >> > >> >> There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, >> due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). >> People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a >> huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you >> could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that >> episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was >> a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him >> to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. >> In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. >> >> Susan >> > >http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:49:56 -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: immortality by way of Highlander.... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:26 PM 2/3/99 -0600, Marina wrote: >In general, i think outliving everyone at old age might be difficult also >because of the limited possibility to have a "full life". One's siblings >and old friends die -- and there is little chance to form new >relationships. Besides, due to the physical limitations, it is often >difficult to, say, go travelling or enjoy some other activities that are >available to single people who are in a better physical condition. >Finally, i think a big part of frustration comes from a simple inability >to take care of oneself independently. I mean, if you cannot even go to >the bathroom without assistance that would make anyone wish to "finally >have some peace". Actually, in my grandmother's case, she was physically quite well. She was in the earlier stages of Alzheimers, however, which must have been hard, so I see your point about the body breaking down and making life unbearable. That had been going on for a while before my great aunt's death, however. It was when my great aunt died that my grandmother became sick and died. I've heard of this happening in other situations... It often amazes me how much we humans can come to care about each other. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:58:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Question... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know about particular markets or publishers that are gay/feminist friendly, but evidently someone is. There's a whole hell of a lot of lesbian science fiction on the shelves on my local Barnes and Noble and Borders stores. It's not segregated, but rather is mixed right in there with the "straight" SF....Mr. Stirling could tell you more about that, having contributed to one of my favorite multi-author series, which had lesiban protagonists. So send it out--lots of friendly readers out there will snap it up, I bet. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Kristina Solheim To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 5:27 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Question... >I'm a bi feminist sff writer and have been writing short stories (and maybe >eventually novels) which contain elements promoting gay awareness. Does >anyone have any information about or experience with sff markets that are >gay-friendly (specifically short story markets besides the _Bending the >Landscape_ anthologies)? Please feel free to reply in private email if you >think this is off-topic. > >I have one short story whose main characters include a straight woman and >her two gay male roommates which is ready to be sent out. But mainly I'm >looking for any advice from readers and writers out there about >feminist-friendly and/or gay-friendly markets. > >Thanks! And I apologize if this is off-topic. > >Kristina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man: James MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > A couple of things have surprised me about the comments so far. The > comment that someone had found it humourless: I think it is one of the > funniest sf novels around. And the comment that aspects of Whileaway were > "horrible". Which? Most prominently, that Janet Evason's job requires her to kill people who withdraw from the community...Russ's choice of rationalization that Janet blithely drops in defense of the practice is, well, choice. Well, now we have a first-hand as well as second-hand votes for humorlessness (I'm sorry, I deleted your message, and don't remember your name now)...I certainly found the book (often grimly) hilarious. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:39:26 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Subject: Question about les/gay SF&F MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sheryl said - >>having contributed to one of my favorite multi-author series, which had lesiban protagonists.<< What series is that Sheryl? Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:38:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E4C51E48B214BE155B87A7FB" --------------E4C51E48B214BE155B87A7FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Several years ago I tried to raise the consciousness of students taking and faculty reading our M.A. comprehensive exams by promulgating an exam reading list that included The Golden Notebook (which, like its author, was unfamiliar to most of our faculty). One student preparing for the exam engaged me in a fairly lengthy conversation about how "dated" that book was, since "we" (liberated women) had come so far since then. She also wanted to take more seriously books that were "timeless," a position I told her I found hard to accept. Every book is of its time timely and we like to think (but may not be able to prove) that the best of them continue to be timely (albeit sometimes for different reasons, as Frank Kermode has argued), which I find true of both the Lessing and the Russ. Bonnie Gray wrote: > I read this book for the first time a couple of years ago (and not > since, so I may be a little rusty on it, although I am holding it > right now). I read it about the time I read "Woman on The Edge > of Time" (Marge Percy) and "Egalia's Daughters" (Gerd Brantenberg). > I suppose all of these books can be considered somewhat "dated"... > but so can any classic dating all the way back to the Iliad and > beyond. What makes a "dated" book worth reading is its relevancy > to human nature and society, and I think that Russ' book is VERY > relevant (as are the other two). People still read Aldous Huxley > and George Orwell and don't discuss their "dated-ness", although > I would make the arguement that they are MORE "dated". > > Even though it has been a couple of years, just sitting here and > thinking about it I am filling with images of my favorite scenes, > the artistry and the humor of the book (and, okay, the preaching, > too). > > One thing I did want to mention was that when I lent the book out > to a male friend a couple of years ago, not only did he not "get > it", but he was really upset about the whole "Davy" thing (among > many others), Davy being the boy toy that is a "lovely limb of the > house". I found these scenes extremely amusing, because the > concept of a beautiful female android to serve the needs of her (male) > master is such a stupid stereotype... and the language that Russ > uses in those scenes is very loving. Very loving... but unmistakably > referring to a completely pure sex object. > > Keep up the great discussions! > > Bonnie --------------E4C51E48B214BE155B87A7FB Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Several years ago I tried to raise the consciousness of students taking and faculty reading our M.A. comprehensive exams by promulgating an exam reading list that included The Golden Notebook (which, like its author, was unfamiliar to most of our faculty).  One student preparing for the exam engaged me in a fairly lengthy conversation about how "dated" that book was, since "we" (liberated women) had come so far since then.  She also wanted to take more seriously books that were "timeless," a position I told her I found hard to accept.  Every book is of its time timely and we like to think (but may not be able to prove) that the best of them continue to be timely (albeit sometimes for different reasons, as Frank Kermode has argued), which I find true of both the Lessing and the Russ.

Bonnie Gray wrote:

I read this book for the first time a couple of
years ago (and not since, so I may be a little rusty on it, although I
am holding it right now).  I read it about the time I read "Woman
on The Edge of Time" (Marge Percy) and "Egalia's Daughters" (Gerd
Brantenberg). I suppose all of these books can be considered somewhat
"dated"... but so can any classic dating all the way back to the Iliad and

beyond.  What makes a "dated" book worth reading is its relevancy
to human nature and society, and I think that Russ' book is VERY
relevant (as are the other two). People still read Aldous Huxley
and George Orwell and don't discuss their "dated-ness", although
I would make the arguement that they are MORE "dated".

Even though it has been a couple of years, just sitting here and
thinking about it I am filling with images of my favorite scenes,
the artistry and the humor of the book (and, okay, the preaching,
too).

One thing I did want to mention was that when I lent the book out
to a male friend a couple of years ago, not only did he not "get
it", but he was really upset about the whole "Davy" thing (among
many others), Davy being the boy toy that is a "lovely limb of the
house".  I found these scenes extremely amusing, because the
concept of a beautiful female android to serve the needs of her (male)
master is such a stupid stereotype... and the language that Russ
uses in those scenes is very loving.  Very loving... but unmistakably
referring to a completely pure sex object.

Keep up the great discussions!

Bonnie

--------------E4C51E48B214BE155B87A7FB-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:41:06 -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: worthless old people In-Reply-To: <36B8A8E5.5954@people-link.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hey you got the episode I was referring to several messages back! I hope you realize I was being tongue-in-cheek with that, but I still believe in a person's right to die. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > Joyce Jones wrote: > a person is alive as > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > Susan > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:42:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: worthless old people MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How about Heinlein's Lazarus Long (in several books)? Marina wrote: > Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times > the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations > (or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science > fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality > (other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science > fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes > Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that > it's not something we'd want anyway. > > Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in > science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count > Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other > immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider > positive by any means). > > Marina > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow > Woman wrote: > > > Joyce Jones wrote: > > a person is alive as > > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > > > Susan > > > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:45:47 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Maybe you wish to become like the cyborgs in Star Trek First Contact where the original borg was a woman who had been made into a cyborg. And I say, no thanks! She seemed to be immortal, but I would rather not wish to lose my humanity to do so. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Marina wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > > > Is it really immortality you want or the voyeurist power to see what > > happens, the elimination of the problems of ageing, and the right to > > pull the plug out at your own choice? > > Probably both. To me, "seeing what happens" is a part of living forever. > These two things kind of imply one another, in my opinion. > > Besides, don't you see what happens during your regular lifetime? Is > that "voyeristic" too? > > >This whole discussion reminds me of that classic fantasy (I know it > > won the Hugo as best sf) by Robert Bloch, "That Hell-Bound Train." > > Hmm. have not read that one. What is it about? > > Marina > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:55:55 -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: worthless old people In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Didnt you give an example with the Highlander series? Yet whether or not its sour grapes or not I sorta still prefer to die when I die and not extend it so long as to become inhuman. Also risking beating a dead horse, Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Marina wrote: > Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times > the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations > (or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science > fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality > (other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science > fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes > Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that > it's not something we'd want anyway. > > Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in > science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count > Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other > immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider > positive by any means). > > Marina > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow > Woman wrote: > > > > Joyce Jones wrote: > > a person is alive as > > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > > > Susan > > > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:58:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: That Hell-Bound Train MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't remember or locate who asked about this Robert Bloch story that concerns a down-and-outer in love with trains whom the devil (in the form of a train conductor) gives a special watch he can stop to preserve a given moment forever. Neither good times nor bad convince him to quit, till that final heart attack (I think) when the train comes to get him. Satan thinks he has him but (Spoiler!) he then stops the watch to beat the devil so he can ride the train to hell forever, never having to debark. It also seems like a positive view of immortality, since the discussion just got around to that as well. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:56:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: immortality in sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I haven't seen anyone mention the book _Islands_ by Marta Randall. It's old and out of print, from the 70's. The protagonist is mortal, in a society of immortals. She's also a woman dealing with the effects of aging. It's a good book and if you can find it I recommend it. While looking to verify the name and author of that book I found an interesting web page listing all kinds of SF books treating immortality: Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:02:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:22 PM 3/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >Well, I can tell you one thing -- 50-year-old women in America >are healthier and better looking than 25-year-old married women in my >country. So apparently, "fighting it" is not as useless and futile. Maybe so, but the fact remains: _they're still going to die_! Who cares if they're still fit and healthy at age 102? It still means they're going to cark it eventually. Good health's a good thing to have, no doubt, but it's no prevention for death! You know, I think I'll probably drop out of this ridiculous argument after this. It's astonishing to think that so many otherwise rational people here actually think that it's possible to live forever. I gave up believing this when I was eight. >Despite all the continuous technology-bashing in this society, >no one (including the most vigorous bashers) would to go even as "natural" >as to stop using, say, hand cream to prevent their hands from cracking and >peeling (as they naturally tend to do once you pass the teen age), or >soap (wash your hands with sand, anyone?). Whaaaa? What's hand cream got to do with this? I'm not talking about preventing _aging_, I'm talking about preventing _death_, which is an absolute impossibility. Besides which, hand cream is hardly going to ward off the effects of old age (let alone the Grim Reaper). As for soap, I was under the impression that was there to keep you clean, not young. >Remember the Handmaid's Tale? The women who would hide butter in their >shoes to use it as cream after the "unnatural ways to prevent aging" were >banished? Is that the ideal? Hands up everyone who heard me praise a Handmaid's Tale-esque society and demand we ban hand cream? >A lot of people are not going to like this, but there is no principal >difference between hand cream and the hormonal anti-age treatments. Again, what?! Oh, no, apart from the fact that hand cream is an external placebo that softens the skin only for a short period of time, and hormone treatment involves the injection of hypodermic needles filled with gunk and sometimes dangerous side-effects...there's no difference at all. >And >condemning the latter while using the former (along with calcium >supplements, vitamins, and sunblocks) is simply hypocritical. Who >said that brittle bones are less "natural" than the crowfeet? Despite all >the talk against the anti-aging treatments, I've never seen even a >30-year-old woman around here who'd "look her age" (deep >wrinkles around eyes and mouth, half-grey hair, age spots, and peeling-red >hands, which is how you normally look by 27 -- or by twenty-three, if you >have kids) -- not even in trailer parks. Where do you live? Pretty much all the older women I know have accepted the way they look. Either you're not telling the whole truth here or the women where you live are quite neurotic about their looks. So whatever people think about >ethical issues of cosmetic industry, apparently everyone uses it, in most >cases, without even thinking. So basically, your argument is "cosmetic surgery rules!" Anybody buy this? >On the question of overpopulation due to immortality -- 95% percent of >human population in the world does not have access to aspirin and basic >antibiotics. So even if the "immortality pills" would cost 5 cents a >package, the whole population of the Earth won't go immortal overnight. Then I guess all you immortals WILL have to have your tubes tied after all! No more children, ever again, not even for the ones who really want them! Huzzah! > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf How someone who endorses cosmetic surgery can have this as a sig I'm afraid I'll never know... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:12:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Suzanne Feldman Subject: Re: Question... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kristina Solheim wrote: > I'm a bi feminist sff writer and have been writing short stories (and maybe > eventually novels) which contain elements promoting gay awareness. Does > anyone have any information about or experience with sff markets that are > gay-friendly (specifically short story markets besides the _Bending the > Landscape_ anthologies)? Please feel free to reply in private email if you > think this is off-topic. I've been amazed where my lesbian-character (sometimes graphically lesbian ) stories have been published. My advice is to send your stories to big, open markets, and don't limit yourself to small 'g/l-friendly' ones. If you want to raise consciousness, send an editor a good story they can't refuse! Sometimes that little bit of 'gender difference' is just what they're looking for. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:30:48 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Question... In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990203151445.009fc100@solheimk.pobox.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Kristina Solheim wrote: > > I have one short story whose main characters include a straight woman and > her two gay male roommates which is ready to be sent out. But mainly I'm > looking for any advice from readers and writers out there about > feminist-friendly and/or gay-friendly markets. > > Thanks! And I apologize if this is off-topic. > > Kristina > I don't think this is an issue in most of the major sf markets anymore. Asimov's under Gardner Dozois, F&SF under Gordon Van Gelder, even Analog under Stanley Schmidt are all lively to publish gay or lesbian themed sf if a) it's good and b) it fits their magazines in other ways. Among the book publishers, Del Rey, in some ways one of the more conservative sf venues, published Nicole Griffith's Slow River. Tor and DAW have both published any number of novels with gay or lesbian characters. Even Baen, nominally the most politically conservative of the major sf publishers, will do books with gay protagonists if they otherwise fit their philosophy. Naiad, an explicitly lesbian press, has also done a fair amount of sf. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:18:02 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 99-02-02 23:32:01 EST, you write: >But this happens to us all! Honestly, this entire argument is ridiculous. -- we're talking about SF. And, given current progress in biology and genetics, this is going to become a real issue within the lifetime of people now on earth. Hopefully, including me... >Wonderful! So then the planet gets even more overpopulated than it already is. -- most of the developed world now has birth-rates below the replacement level, and the rest of the world is following suit rapidly. >Seriously, there is a reason why human beings are not designed to last. -- human beings aren't "designed" to do anything whatsoever. We're an accident of chemical combination and natural selection. This is the teleological fallacy. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:47:58 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 2/2/99 10:34:52 PM Mountain Standard Time, mathews@UNM.EDU writes: << Suppose there were a drug that kept you physically 22 for 18 years - then you withered up and died. Would anybody take it? How about supermodels, star athletes, etc?> >> -- considering the idiotic things athletes, models and actors do to their bodies, they probably would. Not me -- I'm 46, and fairly healthy so far. It would have to _lengthen_ my likely lifespan before I'd go for it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:14:33 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: Severna Park on Event Horizon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/99 7:21:52 AM Mountain Standard Time, mathews@UNM.EDU writes: << On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, suzanne feldman wrote: >If you get a chance, check out my short story, HARBINGERS, on Ellen Datlow's EVENT HORIZON online 'zine. >> -- it's a crying shame there aren't more print outlets for SF short fiction. That story deserved to see print. Suzanne does dynamite short stuff -- her story "Tiger" is up for a Neb, and deservedly so. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:34:49 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: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/99 2:11:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: << I think. A possibility does not have to be a requirement. As long as they don't try to prevent others from doing it. >> -- complete agreement on that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:40:37 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/99 3:06:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, sandy.candioglos@INTEL.COM writes: >and everything to do with things like losing mobility, losing hearing, etc., etc. I agree; who cares how we look? I do care about my body's functionality, though! >> -- while I basically agree, most of the visual signs of aging are due to exactly the same loss of functionality. Eg., loss of muscle mass, decalcification of bones, swelling of the joints, loss of flexibility in the skin, and so forth. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:59:48 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: worthless old people Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/99 4:09:01 PM Mountain Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: >I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes Syndrome -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that it's not something we'd want anyway. >> -- frankly, that's exactly what it looks like to me. Since it's inescapable and horrible, and nothing could be done about the "inescapable" part, people try to hypnotize themselves into believing it's not horrible. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:00:35 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: worthless old people Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/99 4:09:01 PM Mountain Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: >Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. >> -- Poul Anderson has treated it extensively, in "Boat of a Million Years", the "Fleet of Stars" series, and his "Time Patrol" stories, among others. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:17:31 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 2/3/99 7:18:31 PM Mountain Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: >Whaaaa? What's hand cream got to do with this? I'm not talking about preventing _aging_, I'm talking about preventing _death_, which is an absolute impossibility. >> -- well, yes, since the universe is going to die someday, preventing death absolutely probably _is_ an impossibility. However, preventing _aging_ is something that our society will have to deal with within the next century, to a very high probability. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 06:23:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Suzanne Feldman Subject: Re: Severna Park on Event Horizon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -- it's a crying shame there aren't more print outlets for SF short fiction. > That story deserved to see print. If anyone's smacking their forehead, thinking, "oh no! I didn't get to see that story before they took it down!" Worry not...it's archived! Right here...http://www.e-horizon.com/eventhorizon/fiction/index.html > Suzanne does dynamite short stuff -- her story "Tiger" is up for a Neb, and > deservedly so. Thanks! If anyone's interested in seeing this story, which was published in Realms of Fantasy last year, let me know and I'll send it e-mail.. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:40:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sarah Lawrence Subject: Death worship In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:10am -0600 on 1999/02/02, Marina wrote: >I guess it depends on personal preference. Some people are afraid of >getting bored, others don't like the idea of outliving everyone (or as in >case of that X-files guy -- to know when someone dies an being unable >to prevent it), while others again see life as a cycle that needs to be >completed -- or wonder about what's on the other side. People are >different, and so are their attitude towards life and death. > >It's just for me -- none of the above mentioned reasons is good enough to >turn down a chance for immortality. I don't care what is there on the >other side, really. I have a big suspision that it's nothing. You just >turn into a big pile of biological waste, and that's the end of it. >People die and/or leave you even when you are way below ninety -- >and eventually you stop missing them -- so outliving everyone you know is >not such a big deal. Finally, knowing that a person is >going to die and being unable to help -- it's not that different from, >say, working at a hospice, and many people do that. So, you can just see >the world as one big hospice (which it is, anyway). In other words, if I >was offered a chance to live forever, I would say yes without a second >thought. > >Which of course does not mean anyone else has to. After all, I believe in >choice, so -- each to their own. I agree that people should have the choice but I think that it is a mistake to dodge the issue of whether there is something WRONG with people who would not choose immortality. I think there is. In another post, Marina wrote: >Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in >science fiction? There are very very few examples. And that is a very very sinister fact about our culture. We have by no means abandoned the worship of death. Sarah | "I would rather be a beggar and single, Lawrence | than a Queen and married.... I should sl @ TCS | call the wedding ring the yoke ring." - dot ac | Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:56:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sarah Lawrence Subject: Teenagers in SF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:50am -0600 on 1999/01/05, Marina wrote: >Not to start an argument but what is so wrong with the teenagers and >"their" culture? Why would one have to apologize for liking it? Hear, hear! At 2:35am -0600 on 1999/01/04, Marina wrote: >3. Finally, Buffy is not one of those Star Trek / Xena types >who are either gay or bend over backwards to prove their femininity and >good feelings towards men. Yes. Moreover, she's a genuine teenager, not an idealised one (like Robin, or the young Clark Kent). I'd be interested to hear about people's favourite teenage characters (whether in books or films) should anyone feel inclined to share them with me. Sarah | To subscribe to the Taking Children Seriously list, Lawrence | send email to listserv@listserv.aol.com containing: sl @ TCS | SUBSCRIBE TCS-DIGEST your-first-name your-last-name dot ac | http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs USA: http://www.TCS.ac ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:01:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sarah Lawrence Subject: Cosmetic surgery. positive attitudes, etc. In-Reply-To: <199902040202.UAA74862@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 8:02pm -0600 on 1999/02/03, Santanico wrote: >At 04:22 PM 3/02/99 -0600, you wrote: > >>Well, I can tell you one thing -- 50-year-old women in America >>are healthier and better looking than 25-year-old married women in my >>country. So apparently, "fighting it" is not as useless and futile. > >Maybe so, but the fact remains: _they're still going to die_! Who cares if >they're still fit and healthy at age 102? It still means they're going to >cark it eventually. Good health's a good thing to have, no doubt, but it's >no prevention for death! I hope I am fit and healthy at 102. I talked to a very old person recently, and we had an argument about whether it would be wonderful to live for ever (as I think) or not. She said she wants to die because her life has no quality any more -- people don't talk to her like they used to, and she physically can't *do* things that she took for granted when she was my age. What I'd like to know is, why wish for death instead of thinking that it would be better if we could find a way to live for ever with functional bodies? I have known two other extremely old people who did not share this woman's very depressed and depressing death wish. These people were so incredibly positive and youthful in their outlook on life that I would leave their company feeling full of joie de vivre and feeling inspired to follow their example. Those two people were never short of visitors and people to talk to. I think that it is a case of "laugh and the world laughs with you" -- and that the depressed old person I spoke to recently drives people away with her negativity. She was much less physically impaired than one of the two positive old people I knew BTW. >You know, I think I'll probably drop out of this ridiculous argument after >this. It's astonishing to think that so many otherwise rational people here >actually think that it's possible to live forever. I gave up believing this >when I was eight. It may not be possible for us but I hope that it will be for people in the future. Don't you? If death is so super, why not end it all now? >>Despite all the continuous technology-bashing in this society, >>no one (including the most vigorous bashers) would to go even as "natural" >>as to stop using, say, hand cream to prevent their hands from cracking and >>peeling (as they naturally tend to do once you pass the teen age), or >>soap (wash your hands with sand, anyone?). > >Whaaaa? What's hand cream got to do with this? I'm not talking about >preventing _aging_, I'm talking about preventing _death_, which is an >absolute impossibility. No doubt people said that talking to someone on the other side of the world in real time is an absolute impossibility too, before the telephone was invented. No doubt people said that it is fundamentally impossible for large heavy objects carrying people to fly through the air, before aeroplanes were invented. I don't understand why you seem upset by the thought that it might be possible not to die. Why doesn't everyone think that exciting? >>A lot of people are not going to like this, but there is no principal >>difference between hand cream and the hormonal anti-age treatments. > >Again, what?! Oh, no, apart from the fact that hand cream is an external >placebo that softens the skin only for a short period of time, and hormone >treatment involves the injection of hypodermic needles filled with gunk and >sometimes dangerous side-effects...there's no difference at all. Well yes, I myself am much too scared to put myself under the cosmetic surgeon's knife or syringe, but that is because the technology is at such an early stage, and the risks too great. But when the day comes that one's appearance could be a direct reflection of one's own free choices instead of one's genetic inheritance, I might well consider making a few changes sometimes, for fun. What you say about the difference between hand cream and cosmetic surgery seems to me to ingore the fact that technology improves and risks are reduced. In the past, the face cream was extremely dangerous; now, it isn't. I think the same positive change will happen in the more drastic changes one can make through cosmetic surgery. Is that bad? If other people think it worth the risk now, well, that's up to them, isn't it? >>And >>condemning the latter while using the former (along with calcium >>supplements, vitamins, and sunblocks) is simply hypocritical. Who >>said that brittle bones are less "natural" than the crowfeet? Despite all >>the talk against the anti-aging treatments, I've never seen even a >>30-year-old woman around here who'd "look her age" (deep >>wrinkles around eyes and mouth, half-grey hair, age spots, and peeling-red >>hands, which is how you normally look by 27 -- or by twenty-three, if you >>have kids) -- not even in trailer parks. I don't think this is necessarily true actually. I am 35 and rarely use creams or makeup and have spent a lot of time in the sun without sunscreen in the past, but I don't look *quite* like your description. (BTW, I never use hand cream but don't have any problem with my hands. :) ) >Where do you live? Pretty much all the older women I know have accepted the >way they look. Either you're not telling the whole truth here or the women >where you live are quite neurotic about their looks. Or maybe we just have easier, less stressful lives and better diets than women in some other places? > So whatever people think about >>ethical issues of cosmetic industry, apparently everyone uses it, in most >>cases, without even thinking. > >So basically, your argument is "cosmetic surgery rules!" Anybody buy this? I think that you have misconstrued Marina's argument. It sounds as though *your* argument is "whatever I deem "natural" rules, and anything else is bad." Is that your position? >> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society >> is selling at the time." >> Naomi Wolf > >How someone who endorses cosmetic surgery can have this as a sig I'm afraid >I'll never know... What have you got against people choosing to change their appearance (or physical functionality or life expectancy) if they want to? Is there something inherently bad about cosmetic surgery? Sarah | *The Autonomy-Respecting Relationships list* Lawrence | How might relationship ideas be improved? To sl at TCS | subscribe to the ARR list, send a message to dot ac | containing "SUBSCRIBE" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:56:52 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Everybody who's commented on _The female man_ has tacitly or explicitly assumed the main thrust of the book is the conflict between men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed. But is that really the case? It's true, of course, that Russ' nightmare vision of male oppression fills the entire book and many incidents hinge around oppression by individual males. But all males are portrayed as brutish, amorphous enemies fit only for destruction or conversion (by lobotomy) into sex machines. And, to jump ahead, all four principal characters have a rabid, implacable hatred of men and consciously or unconsciously wish to destroy them; the only way in which they differ is how they express or conceal this hatred. In *my* opinion Russ uses "men" to create the aura of menace and fear necessary to set the stage in the same way that Orwell used "Big Brother" in _1984_. The real conflict is that between the women themselves and reflects the despair Russ felt/feels about what is (I am told) the continuing rejection of lesbians by so many "ordinary" feminists. I believe that Russ describes - in fictionalised, hyperbolized form - the 'Lavender Menace' struggle which was raging at the time she wrote _The female man_ and in which she was (I understand) intimately involved. I'd go further and say that _The female man_ was a statement of Russ' most cherished political beliefs to which she has devoted her life. It might be argued here that I'm "confusing the singer and the song" (as Anthea once said), but, unusually, we have proof to the contrary. And that proof is Russ' achingly digressive but painfully honest _What we are fighting for_ written 22 years after _The female man_. In a very real sense, _The female man_ was a precursor to _What..._ because its characters, their motivation, attitudes and actions all foreshadow the main themes of that book. Viewed in this way, it becomes clear that Jeannine, Joanna and Jael are defined not in terms of their attitude to men or to Joanna as I at first thought, but in terms of their attitude to *Janet* who, as an inhabitant of Whileaway, the single-gender, lesbian, socialist Utopia, closely fits Russ' ideal feminist - a "crazy, man-hating separatist" (_What..._ Chapter 3). Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _______________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:46:27 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 10:03:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK writes: << - a "crazy, man-hating separatist" (_What..._ Chapter 3). >> Well. I see Russ' work focusing on male BEHAVIORS that women are not supposed to mention, but that drive us nuts. These behaviors are quite real and we encounter them in ordinary life. The questions of how to deal with the behaviors, how to respond to them, how much to excuse, whether one can be be both strongly human and acceptably female in light of the demands of these behaviors, are questions that must be met on a daily basis in one way or another for most of us. These male BEHAVIORS also effect history, the environment and, resources. Whether we can name the behaviors and respond to them morally is a terrible wilderness for women and a tangled path still. To label Russ' work as political, or gendered, is the same as labeling work by Ghandi, or Ericson, or Plato as gendered and political when the very heart of the discourse is recognition of a human problem and all of the human responses to facing and dealing with the problem..and, of course, the consequences of so doing. And perhaps, after decades of corsets and paint, tippy shoes and diets and endless efforts to meet the visual requirements that satisfy some male BEHAVIORS, we may be forgiven for throwing our heads back and laughing uproariously at the very thought of Davy... And if she has male characters that show male behaviors which are offensive and despicable...what morality play does not show folly? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:50:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Female Man Rather than responding to Santanico who sings paeans to the wondrous changes to American culture due to youthful 60's activists (and ignores the fact that those same activists are yet alive and I'm thinking not completely incompetent) or Marina who thinks hand cream and estrogen replacement are the same thing and appears to know a lot of very undernourished, overworked gray haired 30 year olds, let me mention one of my favorite quotes, there are so many, but just one today. partial pages 52-54 Whileawayan psychology locates the basis of Whileawayan character in the early indulgence, pleasure, and flowering which is drastically curtailed by the separation from the mothers. This (it says) gives Whileawayan life its characteristic independence, its dissatisfaction, its suspicion, and its tendency toward rather irritable solipsism... Taboos on Whileaway: sexual relations with anybody considerably older or younger than oneself, waste, ignorance, offending others without intending to. And of course the usual legal checks on murder and theft--both those crimes being actually quite difficult to commit. ("See," says Dhilia, "it's murder if it's sneaky or if she doesn't want to fight. So you yell 'Olaf!' and when she turns around, then---") No Whilewayan works more than three hours at a time on any one job, except in emergencies. No Whileawayan marries monogamously. (Some restrict their sexual relations to one other person--at least while that other person is nearby--but there is no legal arrangement.) Whileawayan psychology again refers to the distrust of the mother and the reluctance to form a tie that will engage every level of emotion, all the person, all the time. And the necessity for artificial dissatisfactions. "Without which" (says Dunyasha Bernadetteson, op. cit.) 'we would become so happy we would sit down on our fat, pretty behinds and soon we would start starving, nyet?" And my favorite ideas of all the great ideas that are here are: it's taboo to offend someone without intending to. I love that. Here in our 1999 the apology is "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to offend." How much more honest that way would be. Which leads to the other favorite idea that artificial dissatisfactions are necessary. No prolonged naval gazing there. I don't like offensive people and I see no point in artificial dissatisfactions "Can't we all just get along?" But I like the idea of liking it. Her people are so feisty. It makes me smile just to type this. Oh, and the idea that fat behinds are sexy, gotta love that. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:57:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Nuremberg files Well, you heard about the Nuremberg files. Have you seen them? Here they are, not for the weak of stomach. It's pretty hard to look a lists of people targeted for murder and requests for personal information about those people including their addresses and the names of their children. Handmaid's Tale, here we come. Joyce http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:45:50 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 11:03:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK writes: << Everybody who's commented on _The female man_ has tacitly or explicitly assumed the main thrust of the book is the conflict between men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed. But is that really the case? >> -- interesting post. Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody obeyed the Golden Rule. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:53:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have to admit that at first I didn't like this book-- I was alienated by its anger, and it made me uncomfortable because I had to rethink my feminism. (I suppose that's a good thing.) But reading the posts from the group has helped me to warm up to it. I think it's a very powerful book, and some passages are just brilliant, but on the whole it was too didactic for me. I did find many parts funny, though the vitriol driving some of the humor put me off. If I would have read this book when I was 17 or so, (I'm 29 now) I think I would have been affirmed by it. I was very angry when I was younger-- burning up with righteous anger, and then, well-- I burnt out. So it makes sense that a book like this would throw me-- I haven't made peace with my politics. I find it's easier on a day to day basis not to prick up my ears to every bit of sexism around me. That's what I used to do. And I was one angry girl. I found the style of the book a bit like Kathy Acker's style, but Russ seems less interested in ambiguity and junk language than Acker. Some have discussed whether this book is obsolete-- as Russ so cleverly hints in the end, that her little book not despair if it is not needed anymore. But the irony is that once I finished it I thought, yes-- it's not needed any more, but I also thought, Of course it's needed. So I was torn. Mike Levy points out that the book is actually discussing feminists relationships with each other, and not so much women's relationships with men. I think this is a good way to look at it. But I also began to wonder what the "third wave" of feminism is all about, the "new feminism" and it's ability to go beyond polemics and embrace ambiguities, kind of a post modern sensibility. This book is on the threshold of an older feminism and a newer one. It has a postmodern, fragmented construction and yet its sentiments are unambiguous. To me, the enemies and heroes of the book are clear. Though I must say that reading others comments has helped me see that the book is more complicated than I had first thought--- and also that it made me uncomfortable is a good sign. Plus, a codpiece wearing, deep fried grease-eating patriarch named Lenny, is funny-- as was all the random stupid advice men give throughout the book-- "Is your dog drinking cold fountain water?!" How many times I've had to suffer men trying to be useful like that. I guess it's easier to laugh at the less tragic stuff. (ie. I didn't find the Davy thing funny, just creepy.) --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:57:10 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: BDG Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 11:54:05 AM Mountain Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: << This (it says) gives Whileawayan life its characteristic independence, its dissatisfaction, its suspicion, and its tendency toward rather irritable solipsism... >> -- well, that's the thing about utopias -- they generally don't have to coexist with (or compete against) other societies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:05:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902040202.UAA74862@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > Maybe so, but the fact remains: _they're still going to die_! Who cares if > they're still fit and healthy at age 102? It still means they're going to > cark it eventually. Good health's a good thing to have, no doubt, but it's > no prevention for death! Actually, to draw this discussion gently back to science fiction, Nancy Kress speculated in "Beggars in Spain" that if you prevent aging well enough, you might also prevent death. And it makes sense--if you're not really aging, if your cells aren't decaying, you won't die of "natural causes". Not aging won't stop you from being hit by a truck or shot by a lunatic, but it will stop the currently-inevitable cellular decay that eventually causes death. I'm also curious why so many people are so certain that not dying would cause one to lose one's humanity. Or just why there's -such- a strong block against the idea of immortality being possible. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't speak your crazy moon language." --The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:10:36 -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: BDG: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think we were meant to find the Davy thing creepy, myself. I've never really viewed Female Man as an unduly angry book. Maybe I stand alone and lonely, like the Cold Duke of Coffin Castle (place _that_reference anybody?) or maybe I'm just young enough so that I have the luxury of separating criticizing bad male behavior from criticizing men in some essentialist sense. And women don't come off incredibly well either. Who is perfect? Whileaway, though I'd go there like a shot, is a rather disturbing place. I love this book because it is so literary, it leaves so much to the reader's initiative. Also because the prose is humorous and lucid and strong, rather reminiscent for me (weirdly enough) of Orwell's essays. Has anyone commented yet on the fact that Janet is actually considered rather stupid on Whileaway? This is a fixation of Russ's--future societies where everyone has become so smart that today-type smart people are dumb by comparison. And has anyone read the short story "A Few Things I Know About Whileaway", which is mainly an excerpt from the book with a few crucial differences? And that story in Women of Wonder II? About the Cross-Temporal Military Police, or whatever they're called? Russ has a rather interesting set of fixations about futures, rather similar to Delaney's. >>> Allyson Shaw 02/04 3:53 PM >>> I have to admit that at first I didn't like this book-- I was alienated by its anger, and it made me uncomfortable because I had to rethink my feminism. (I suppose that's a good thing.) But reading the posts from the group has helped me to warm up to it. I think it's a very powerful book, and some passages are just brilliant, but on the whole it was too didactic for me. I did find many parts funny, though the vitriol driving some of the humor put me off. If I would have read this book when I was 17 or so, (I'm 29 now) I think I would have been affirmed by it. I was very angry when I was younger-- burning up with righteous anger, and then, well-- I burnt out. So it makes sense that a book like this would throw me-- I haven't made peace with my politics. I find it's easier on a day to day basis not to prick up my ears to every bit of sexism around me. That's what I used to do. And I was one angry girl. I found the style of the book a bit like Kathy Acker's style, but Russ seems less interested in ambiguity and junk language than Acker. Some have discussed whether this book is obsolete-- as Russ so cleverly hints in the end, that her little book not despair if it is not needed anymore. But the irony is that once I finished it I thought, yes-- it's not needed any more, but I also thought, Of course it's needed. So I was torn. Mike Levy points out that the book is actually discussing feminists relationships with each other, and not so much women's relationships with men. I think this is a good way to look at it. But I also began to wonder what the "third wave" of feminism is all about, the "new feminism" and it's ability to go beyond polemics and embrace ambiguities, kind of a post modern sensibility. This book is on the threshold of an older feminism and a newer one. It has a postmodern, fragmented construction and yet its sentiments are unambiguous. To me, the enemies and heroes of the book are clear. Though I must say that reading others comments has helped me see that the book is more complicated than I had first thought--- and also that it made me uncomfortable is a good sign. Plus, a codpiece wearing, deep fried grease-eating patriarch named Lenny, is funny-- as was all the random stupid advice men give throughout the book-- "Is your dog drinking cold fountain water?!" How many times I've had to suffer men trying to be useful like that. I guess it's easier to laugh at the less tragic stuff. (ie. I didn't find the Davy thing funny, just creepy.) --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:20:52 -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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> "S.M. Stirling" 02/04 3:45 PM >> Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody obeyed the Golden Rule. This is why I like Samuel Delaney. His exhaustingly diverse futures are postulated on a lot of different groups doing different things at the same time--that is, he might well say that separatism was not irrelevant (honestly...) but a choice that some people might want to make, people who (being people) were relevant, acceptable, worthy of interest, and so forth. The logic that something is irrelevant if only a few people do it leads eventually to the conclusion that everything is irrelevant, since every action is ultimately different from every other, with different motives and results. Separatism is probably irrelevant if you are studying interracial marriages or heterosexual sexual positioning, but the separtist impulse itself is extremely interesting as a cultural indicator. It depends on your approach, or, as they put it on Sesame Street, "the whole thing's 'bout the size of where you put your eyes...that's about the size of it." (That's it, cancel Sesame Street, that sink of postmodernism and moral relativism!) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:21:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Question about les/gay SF&F MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh, I knew someone would ask. I don't remember the name of the full series, but I think it was the "5th Age" or something similar. Book titles included The Cage, Snow Brother, Saber and Shadow, and a couple of others. Shirley Meier and (I think) Karen Wehrstein were the other two writers who collaborated on the series. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Jenny To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 12:21 AM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Question about les/gay SF&F >Sheryl said - > >>>having contributed to one of my favorite multi-author series, which had >lesiban protagonists.<< > >What series is that Sheryl? > >Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:35:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <36BA16E0.A94181B3@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A couple of people have mentioned that they don't find the Davy thing amusing at all, just creepy. Perhaps I should have been a little more explicit in my first post about that. Of COURSE I also find him creepy; in fact, very scary because I see him as a future possibility. However, whether Russ intended me to find it amusing or not, I do. Probably because I have read and seen too many stories and movies where the female character is the sex object... or a beautiful android in love with an undeserving hero/maker... only Russ takes it to such an extreme that it is ludicrous, as well as disturbing. But enough about that. Not even my favorite part of the book, by a long shot! And maybe this is a misinterpretation (sorry; I'm an engineer, I don't do this stuff for a living :) ), but I often wondered if the four women in the story also represented different views of "feminism". Even Jeannine. Or maybe it's just because the back of the book jacket in my edition asks the question: "Are these four women -- or one?" Probably just the publishers trying to be clever. I'm glad people are finally diving into the discussion; although I really liked the book, I have also found it "uncomfortable" and felt like I was missing alot. I'm hoping we can fill in some of my gaps. Bonnie On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Allyson Shaw wrote: > I have to admit that at first I didn't like this book-- I was alienated by > its anger, and it made me uncomfortable because I had to rethink my > feminism. (I suppose that's a good thing.) > > But reading the posts from the group has helped me to warm up to it. I think > it's a very powerful book, and some passages are just brilliant, but on the > whole it was too didactic for me. > > I did find many parts funny, though the vitriol driving some of the humor put > me off. > > If I would have read this book when I was 17 or so, (I'm 29 now) I think I > would have been affirmed by it. I was very angry when I was younger-- > burning up with righteous anger, and then, well-- I burnt out. So it makes > sense that a book like this would throw me-- I haven't made peace with my > politics. I find it's easier on a day to day basis not to prick up my ears > to every bit of sexism around me. That's what I used to do. And I was one > angry girl. > > I found the style of the book a bit like Kathy Acker's style, but Russ seems > less interested in ambiguity and junk language than Acker. > > Some have discussed whether this book is obsolete-- as Russ so cleverly hints > in the end, that her little book not despair if it is not needed anymore. > But the irony is that once I finished it I thought, yes-- it's not needed any > more, but I also thought, Of course it's needed. > > So I was torn. Mike Levy points out that the book is actually discussing > feminists relationships with each other, and not so much women's > relationships with men. I think this is a good way to look at it. But I > also began to wonder what the "third wave" of feminism is all about, the "new > feminism" and it's ability to go beyond polemics and embrace ambiguities, > kind of a post modern sensibility. This book is on the threshold of an older > feminism and a newer one. It has a postmodern, fragmented construction and > yet its sentiments are unambiguous. To me, the enemies and heroes of the > book are clear. > > Though I must say that reading others comments has helped me see that the > book is more complicated than I had first thought--- and also that it made me > uncomfortable is a good sign. Plus, a codpiece wearing, deep fried > grease-eating patriarch named Lenny, is funny-- as was all the random stupid > advice men give throughout the book-- "Is your dog drinking cold fountain > water?!" > > How many times I've had to suffer men trying to be useful like that. I guess > it's easier to laugh at the less tragic stuff. (ie. I didn't find the Davy > thing funny, just creepy.) > --Allyson > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:41:39 -0800 Reply-To: Bonnie Gray Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Teenagers in SF Comments: To: Sarah Lawrence In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Half of Octavia Butler's characters! :) Of course, they are all wise beyond their years, despite their foilbles, so I don't know if that counts. Lesser known, a fun little book called Emergence by Davis Palmer. Although Candy Smith-Foster is more a pre-teen, as I recall. Supersmart, black belt toting, joke-making... and yet, completely at a loss for all the usual teenage items. Bonnie On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Sarah Lawrence wrote: > At 12:50am -0600 on 1999/01/05, Marina wrote: > > >Not to start an argument but what is so wrong with the teenagers and > >"their" culture? Why would one have to apologize for liking it? > > Hear, hear! > > At 2:35am -0600 on 1999/01/04, Marina wrote: > > >3. Finally, Buffy is not one of those Star Trek / Xena types > >who are either gay or bend over backwards to prove their femininity and > >good feelings towards men. > > Yes. Moreover, she's a genuine teenager, not an idealised one > (like Robin, or the young Clark Kent). > > I'd be interested to hear about people's favourite teenage > characters (whether in books or films) should anyone feel > inclined to share them with me. > > Sarah | To subscribe to the Taking Children Seriously list, > Lawrence | send email to listserv@listserv.aol.com containing: > sl @ TCS | SUBSCRIBE TCS-DIGEST your-first-name your-last-name > dot ac | http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs USA: http://www.TCS.ac > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:54:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: S.M. Stirling To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Female Man >In a message dated 2/4/99 11:03:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, >m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK writes: > ><< Everybody who's commented on _The female man_ has tacitly or explicitly >assumed the main thrust of the book is the conflict between men as the >oppressors and women as the oppressed. But is that really the case? >> > >-- interesting post. > >Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a >passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody >obeyed the Golden Rule. I would tend to agree. I went through a separatist phase, and found it to be fun and strengthening for awhile, but eventually tedious. It's nice to have the possibility of separating (and I would imagine this to be true whether one is male or female), but still--the world is stubbornly composed of men and women, and it's a useful skill to be able to get along with both. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:49:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: BDG Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh, and the >idea that fat behinds are sexy, gotta love that. > >Joyce Well, hell, darlin---mine sure is! Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:42:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man: Gray MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > And maybe this is a misinterpretation (sorry; I'm an engineer, I > don't do this stuff for a living :) ), but I often wondered if the > four women in the story also represented different views of > "feminism". Even Jeannine. Or maybe it's just because the back > of the book jacket in my edition asks the question: "Are these > four women -- or one?" Probably just the publishers trying > to be clever. I would say that you've got it as much as I have--and I'd suggest that the four characters are similarly-named so that you'd consider them four aspects of the fictional Joanna Russ (and how she might act in her current reality, and in the three potential other ones), capable of self-criticism and criticism of fellow feminists (lesbian, separatist and not) as well as of men and patriarchy. However, the most egregious acts are mostly committed by men, 'cause that's what's most prevalent. That someone's reading led them to take All the critique as against other feminists is narrowing too much I'd say (thought that kinda strange), but throughout the book JR doesn't let anyone completely off the hook, even mocking the notion of "the rescue of the female child" to some extent in Janet's agonizing over her lust for the teen. And that the "utopian" Whileaway features some of the same sort of mindless cruelty that other real and imaginary societies incorporate does slap at any notion that JR is putting forward a Golden-Rule paradise of the kind Stirling dismisses... _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:45:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I don't think "Joanna's" attitude toward men is rabid or implacable. Janet is not impressed with our culture (I don't get the impression that most current women would gain her admiration too quickly, either); the others have good reason to hate men thoroughly. Feeling guilty? , all four principal characters have a rabid, implacable hatred of men > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:46:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: markets / BDG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree with Mike and the others who said basically that most of the SF houses are looking to publish good sf, regardless of the preferences of the characters. DAW, Tor, Baen and Del Rey have all been cited as major houses. Circlet is a good small house source. FWIW, as a SF bookstore buyer, I would recommend all of these above Naiad, if only because for them the sex element seems to be more important than the story element. ________ RE: Davey, the "boy toy" I wonder if people's comfort levels with this character depend on whether they read him more as a "boy" or a "toy." Is he a male character reduced to a mechanical existance, or a biological machine? My $.02 on the age thing. Born in 1965, read FEMALE MAN for the first time fairly recently, was angry at the number of issues which still are present, given the time which has passed since it was written. Don't comprehend anyone who can read it and think that it doesn't apply to her life in 1999. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:17:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peatling & Barnes Subject: Re: Nuremberg files MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The link below apparently goes to a site with restricted access. What is the group that posted this? JaneP -----Original Message----- From: Joyce Jones To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 2:17 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Nuremberg files >Well, you heard about the Nuremberg files. Have you seen them? Here they >are, not for the weak of stomach. It's pretty hard to look a lists of >people targeted for murder and requests for personal information about those >people including their addresses and the names of their children. >Handmaid's Tale, here we come. > >Joyce > >http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:48:17 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------95C9D20304CD3D78DE87B9E8" --------------95C9D20304CD3D78DE87B9E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit S.M. Stirling wrote: > Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a > passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody > obeyed > the Golden Rule. > I don't mean to be daft, but I don't know what this means. Pls splain. (Understand all the words, just not the point.) Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:07:44 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: BDG: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 3:14:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes: << I think we were meant to find the Davy thing creepy, myself. >> -- I always thought it was satirical in intent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:01:11 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: Severna Park on Event Horizon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Suze; Don't know if you'll want to talk to me after the arguments around Steve and Anthea's nasty remarks. However, I want you, at least, to know that I was not being disrespectful of your request to end the discussion, when I sent my post. I sent mine at around 5 am my time, went to bed and didn't get yours until at least 7 or 8 hours later. Regardless, I am sorry if you were bothered by my part in the discussion, that was not my intention. I would appreciate an email of the story you mentioned;<>. Thank you- Mary-Ellen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:15:02 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, since this immortality argument as it is seems to be getting us nowhere, I thought perhaps it was time to introduce another perspective. Rather than immediately stating, "I wanna live forever", might it not be a little more useful to examine what it is about death and aging that we're all so afraid of? Getting sick. Okay, fine, that's reasonable. Nobody likes losing their faculties. That seems to be the main reason people don't want to die, from general consensus. But getting sick doesn't mean death necessarily follows straight away. Losing your looks. This is a purely aesthetic thing, and is probably due to society brainwashing people to believe that old = ugly. But actual death - I think people are afraid of this because it's the one thing you really can never truly know for sure about. Everything in life can pretty well be predicted, more or less, or at least estimated, and there will be at the very least one person whose evidence backs you up. Whereas with death, the only way to really know for sure, is to, well...you know. I think people aren't so much afraid of death per se, as what death _could_ be - that there really is nothing on "the other side", and that our consciousness simply vanishes into nothingness. The thought of total obliteration is a frightening one; however, because nobody has actually died and lived to tell about it (well, there's near-death experiences, but again, they can't be proven), we'll never really know for sure. I mean, if we all knew for absolute certain that we'd go to some wonderful place where all our loved ones greet us and we get to gambol through lush green fields, would anyone violently react against the notion of death? And before I get misconstrued, let me remind you that I personally have no inkling of what happens either, and don't pretend to. I don't know if there really is an afterlife - anyone who says they know for sure is either a religious nut or a charlatan. It's precisely because life after death is the one thing nobody can ever really be sure about that death's feared so much. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just trying to sort this argument out slightly rationally... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:16:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Severna Park on Event Horizon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:01 PM 4/02/99 EST, you wrote: >I would appreciate an email of the story you mentioned;<interested in seeing this story, which was published in Realms of Fantasy last >year, let me know and I'll send it e-mail..>>. > >Thank you- >Mary-Ellen Sorry, I kinda missed out on this discussion. Which story would this be? I'm curious. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:20:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: BDG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Maryelizabeth wrote: > > RE: Davey, the "boy toy" > > I wonder if people's comfort levels with this character depend on whether > they read him more as a "boy" or a "toy." Is he a male character reduced to > a mechanical existance, or a biological machine? > > > This is an interesting question-- I to me it's irrelevant. I understand, As Mr. Stirling points out, that it is satire-- but it is almost too effective. I can't watch this kind of stuff when women are involved, and we're usually never put in the position of watching men dehumanized in this way. I suppose Jael's (it was Jael, right?) tenderness for him(it) made it all more disturbing. As if her hatred had lead her away from the possiblity of loving an actual person. So it wasn't so much his plight as hers that disturbed me. --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:06:33 -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: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:45 PM 2/4/99 EST, S.M. Stirling wrote: >Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a >passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody obeyed >the Golden Rule. Huh. So separatism is irrelevant, eh? Sort of like "immortality". At least separatism is somewhat possible in today's world. And thinking about it is VERY interesting for some women. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:16:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty Subject: Re: the female man Comments: To: Lilith In-Reply-To: <004601be4e64$da4e1900$675cadce@ligeia.concentric> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "OK I haven't read the book yet - but I am going to as soon as [enter excuse here]." FYI I am finding it difficult to locate the book in our public libraries....wondering how widespread that problem is ... JB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:27:18 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: the female man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:16 PM 4/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >"OK I haven't read the book yet - but I am going to as soon as [enter >excuse here]." > >FYI >I am finding it difficult to locate the book in our public >libraries....wondering how widespread that problem is ... Same here. I swear, I can't find the damn thing anywhere. The cornerstone of modern feminist literature (or so I've heard), and every bookshop and library seems to be mysteriously out of stock. And yet, the Gor novels are readily available. Sigh... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:30:33 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 04:45 PM 2/4/99 EST, S.M. Stirling wrote: >>Personally, I always viewed separatism as simply irrelevant, rather like a >>passionate conviction that everything would be great if only everybody obeyed >>the Golden Rule. JDawley: Brava. And it is also very interesting to members of any oppressed or "subordinate" group in any social or cultural milieu, and it is practiced in many variations in many places. No surprise that the vocalization of its irrelevance here is made by a american white male. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 04:42:27 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 4 Feb 99, at 13:53, Allyson Shaw wrote: > Some have discussed whether this book is obsolete >-- as Russ so cleverly hints in the end, that her > little book not despair if it is not needed anymore. One of the points that struck me very forcibly when comparing _The female man_ and _What we are fighting for_ was the the difference in tone of the endings. As I read it, _The female man_ ended up on a vaguely optimistic note - Russ apparently saw some hope for the future (although there have been suggestions that this was added for commercial reasons at the behest of her publisher). _What..._ on the contrary has, in spite of Russ' somewhat pious denials, a deep sense of pessimism and despair. Not about men, I hasten to add because Russ has implicitly written them off but about "intra-female" relations, specifically those between lesbians and other feminists. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ____________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 04:44:00 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 4 Feb 99, at 13:46, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > To label Russ' work as political, or gendered, is the same as > labeling work by Ghandi, or Ericson, or Plato as gendered and > political when the very heart of the discourse is recognition of a > human problem and all of the human responses to facing and dealing > with the problem..and, of course, the consequences of so doing. Madrone I'm not sure what you mean by "gendered" so I won't comment on that. But I didn't use "political" pejoratively, but simply repeated what *Russ* said about herself (that she DEFINES HERSELF among other things as "socialist" is well-known). On your examples: I don't know which Ericson you're referring to. Mahatma Gandhi described himself as a politician when he was leader of the Indian Nationalist Movement and when he was active (and probably the dominant figure) in the Indian National Congress. _The Republic_ which is widely regarded as Plato's most influential work is perhaps the quintessential political work. My comments on Russ weren't intended to be unconstructively judgmental, but were meant to suggest reasons for a different interpretation of _The female man_. It's seldom that a writer has the courage to lay her political soul bare as Russ has in _What we are fighting for_ and by doing so she's given us an extremely powerful tool for analysing her work. We owe it to Russ to use the gift she's given us. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _____________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:02:33 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MStanton < _What..._ on the contrary has, in spite of Russ' somewhat pious denials, a deep sense of pessimism and despair. Not about men, I hasten to add because Russ has implicitly written them off but about "intra-female" relations, specifically those between lesbians and other feminists.> What?!?!?!?!??!?! Russ has implicity written off men? What are you trying to say here? Regardless, I would suggest that you are mistaken. I saw Cherrie Moraga last evening. She was recalling a talk she attended by August Wilson were he explained that when he writes he is very much writing from within the 'Slave house' rather than the 'Masters house'. I believe for Russ' text 'What Are We Fighting For?' an analogy can be drawn. Russ is standing in womens space for the entirety of her book. It is a dialogue with her sisters opened to all. Men especially could approach/read this book with awe and respect, for it is an open door onto hearfelt, poignant and earnest dialogues on womens concerns as we would discuss them amongst each other. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:33:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think The Female Man is a great book. A professor of mine that I really admire said she thinks the book is poorly written because it is hard to figure out what's going on and who is speaking, but I loved it. I admit I read an article on it before reading the actual book ( I can dig up the name of the article if anyone is interested) but once I understood who the speakers were, I enjoyed the book. Some of my favorite parts and quotes: *The superwoman section: Joanna talking about a beautiful, intellectual, charming woman who has eight kids, does her own cooking, keeps her home spotless, has a demanding nine-to-five job, and turns into a Playboy fantasy for her husband every night "dispelling the canard that you cannot be eight people simultaneously with two different sets of values" *"everyone must have his own abortion" --I just love it when Russ makes fun of the notion that the "generic" male pronoun "he" includes women. *when Joanna instructs her daughter book to "wash your face and take your place without a fuss in the Library of Congress" and warns her not to punch anyone in the nose *There's also lots of cat imagery that I get a kick out of. I also see connections between The Female Man and Nicola Griffith's Ammonite. In Ammonite there is the all-female society, a virus that killed all the men (although at the end of The Female Man there's the hint that the women of Whileaway killed off all the men rather than a plague), also the new settlement the mirrors in Ammonite start toward the end of the book is called what translates to something like "in a while" which makes me think of Russ's Whileaway. I find The Female Man very funny and don't feel like it's dated. Joanna G. (How could I not like a book with so many Joannas in it?) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:54:59 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 9:34:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, jgoltzma@IX.NETCOM.COM writes: > I also see connections between The Female Man and Nicola Griffith's > Ammonite. In Ammonite there is the all-female society, a virus that killed > all the men (although at the end of The Female Man there's the hint that the > women of Whileaway killed off all the men rather than a plague), also the > new settlement the mirrors in Ammonite start toward the end of the book is > called what translates to something like "in a while" which makes me think > of Russ's Whileaway. You're absolutely right. Though my novel was written more as an answer to "When It Changed" than to _The Female Man_. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:45:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Paul V. Heinrich" Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Freddie Baer asked ... other questions omitted ... >How will this planet support an immortal race that continues to >breed? How long will it take before earth's carrying-capacity is >reached? As has been noted, these questions has been discussed in a number of science fiction novels. There are other rather interesting matters to consider. For example, immortality would mean the end of "tenure" for college professors as we know it. A person can envision such a world where assination becomes a means of acquiring a teaching position or any sort of job. On the otherhand, I would hope that some sort of peaceful means of rotating people through jobs would evolve like "term limits" for positions of authority like professors and company COE. Of course boredom would likely have the same effect. A major issue is that mortality is such a integral part of the current cultures that immortality or any fasimile of it would likely transform all of them into something that we would have trouble recognizing. For example, religions which promise their adherents eternal life after death would have some re-thinking to do about how they market their beliefs. Also, the threat of Hell might not be a useful argument to control the behavior of immortal human beings. In another case, the work-retire senario as currently practiced would have to be revised. [ Social Security would definitely be down the tubes. :-) ]. Also, I wonder how risk-taking behavior would change. Would a person knowing that will not die unless they have an accident play it safe to point of becoming prisoner of their caution? Also, no matter how healthy a person is the brain has a finite storage capacity. Like Ann Clayborne in "Green Mars" there will come a time when past events will simply start to fade, even disappear from one's memories. Once a steady state of memory input equaled memory disappearing, it might seem like having low-grade Altzimers. A person would have find some way of downloading memories into a computer device that would file and store them in an accessiable form. This discussion reminds me of the quote: "Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." -- Susan Ertz My personal position about immortality is that it would certainly fun to try. If for some reason it proved to be unbearable, a person could do something about it. This is not true of the other option. Yours, P. V. Heinrich heinrich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA P.S. Are people suppose to introduce themsleves? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:38:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: the female man MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit As I said a month ago, I have a few copies (I think it's only appeared in paperback) which I could part with, though I am unwilling to pay everyone's postage and there's obviously delay time in getting it through the mail. Santanico wrote: > At 11:16 PM 4/02/99 -0500, you wrote: > >"OK I haven't read the book yet - but I am going to as soon as [enter > >excuse here]." > > > >FYI > >I am finding it difficult to locate the book in our public > >libraries....wondering how widespread that problem is ... > > > > Same here. I swear, I can't find the damn thing anywhere. The cornerstone of > modern feminist literature (or so I've heard), and every bookshop and > library seems to be mysteriously out of stock. > > And yet, the Gor novels are readily available. Sigh... > > Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:44:05 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Is "What" available on-line, and if so, where? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:47:22 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 2/4/99 10:56:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, heinrich@INTERSURF.COM writes: >For example, immortality would mean the end of "tenure" for college professors as we know it. >> -- I remember having a discussion on this matter, when the telomerase research had come up, in which I remarked: "And we Boomers will be immortal, so you'll have to listen to 60's revival music and us talking about the Summer of Love _forever_." Response: "Aiiiiieeeee!" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:59:42 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/99 11:56:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: > -- Canadian, actually... 8-). In this case, we have a _literal_ application of the argument _ad hominem_. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:03:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:47 AM 5/02/99 EST, you wrote: >-- I remember having a discussion on this matter, when the telomerase research >had come up, in which I remarked: "And we Boomers will be immortal, so you'll >have to listen to 60's revival music and us talking about the Summer of Love >_forever_." > >Response: "Aiiiiieeeee!" Heh heh heh...good one :) Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:15:04 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 12:39:33 AM Mountain Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: >At least separatism is somewhat possible in today's world. -- depends what you mean by "possible". Eg., is it possible to have a separate politics, which exercises real power? A separate economics, with real money and _economic_ power? Not very likely. Is it possible that women _in general_ will become separatist? (Which is the premise of "The Female Man". Not very likely either. It is possible for individual women to chose not to have more than they must to do with men, and if that's their choice, that's fine -- it's a free country, after all. It just isn't very culturally or politically significant. Some women chose to live on Hutterite religious communes... and _they're_ not very significant, either, big-picture-wise. (Neither are male Hutterites, of course.) >And thinking about it is VERY interesting for some women. -- Didn't say it wasn't. I was merely questioning its general utility, except as a basis for literary satire, like Swift's lands of talking horses and Lilliputians. Eg., it's very interesting for some black Americans to think about the CIA creating AIDS as part of a plot, but it probably doesn't do much about reducing the level of racial discrimination in our society. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:18:17 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 12:54:38 AM Mountain Standard Time, m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK writes: << _The Republic_ which is widely regarded as Plato's most influential work is perhaps the quintessential political work. >> -- also rather feminist, by Classical Greek standards. Of course, it was based on Sparta, where the position of women was better than in most of the Greek world. (Upper-class women, at least.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:01:44 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: S.M. Stirling To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Female Man > -- Canadian, actually... 8-). last I checked Canada was in america. i am well aware of your "cultural roots". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:06:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Octavia Butler Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Octavia Butler is on the cover of the premiere issue of a new magazine -- Black Issues Book Review -- with a nice interview besides. Other stories/reviews about sff in the issue. Just got a copy and haven't read the whole thing (except those noted above and skimming for sff stuff!) but it's a slick and ambitious publication. Website is http://www.bibookreview.com best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:10:43 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stirling: >>And thinking about it is VERY interesting for some women.>> -- Didn't say it wasn't. I was merely questioning its general utility, except as a basis for literary satire, like Swift's lands of talking horses and Lilliputians. Significance and utility in bunches. Men have been using separatism for eons to maintain their power and control. I believe men occupy your 'big picture". donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:16:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:01 AM 5/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >> > >-- Canadian, actually... 8-). > >last I checked Canada was in america. i am well aware of your "cultural roots". She knows your secret, SM! Run for the hills! Come on, Donna. I may not always agree with everything SM says (though that thing about listening to hippies ramble about the Summer of Love forever was damn funny), but I won't stoop to the "You're an American white man, so what would you know?" defense. That's not feminism, that's just reverse chauvinism. Imagine the reaction in these parts if a man said, "You're an American white woman, so what would you know?" If you can't participate in a debate without getting personal, perhaps you shouldn't participate. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:03:07 -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: OT - Attacks (was BDG ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sant. said: Lest anyone think I am cowed. I reiterate that Stirlings existence as an 'american white male' is highly relevant to his dismissal of the importance of separatism. Naming this fact is an extension of understanding that the "personal is political". I am following Stirlings own example (following is a paraphrase of posts exchanged. do not have them saved) - He has used this "method" himself lo about two months ago when he called out the behavior of "middle-class white women academics". At the time, I challenged him as to its kindness as a commentary here on the list and his reply was that he was acknowledging the impact of cultural and economic realities to ones perception of the world. Touché Stirling. So in the best tradition of mentor to mentored. I offer Stirlings own explanation back to you regarding my calling out of his origins and its relevance to his commentary. As to my personal behavior - it is in most instances, including this one, exemplary. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:55:18 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: OT - Attacks (was BDG ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 09:03 AM 5/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >Lest anyone think I am cowed. I wasn't trying to "cow" you, Donna. There's no need to engage in macha posturing. >I reiterate that Stirlings existence as an 'american white male' is highly >relevant to his dismissal of the importance of separatism. Naming this >fact is an extension of understanding that the "personal is political". I >am following Stirlings own example (following is a paraphrase of posts >exchanged. do not have them saved) - He has used this "method" himself lo >about two months ago when he called out the behavior of "middle-class white >women academics". At the time, I challenged him as to its kindness as a >commentary here on the list and his reply was that he was acknowledging >the impact of cultural and economic realities to ones perception of the >world. Touché Stirling. So in the best tradition of mentor to mentored. >I offer Stirlings own explanation back to you regarding my calling out of >his origins and its relevance to his commentary. Ahhh. NOW I understand. I must admit I missed that particular post. Rest assured if I'd seen it I'd have chastised Stirling in the same way; in fact I think I'll do so now. Stirling, what exactly prompted you to make this extremely insulting and generalised comment I have no idea - to suggest that just because a person is white, middle-class, female or an academic they do not have a right to a political opinion is ludicrous, and just as bad as suggesting that ethnic working-class people don't have this same right. As for the "acknowledging impact" etc. - well, that just sounds like a classic case of using pretentiousness as a way to cover up a biased opinion to me. The kind of pretentiousness, I should note, that a white middle-class male academic might possess (along with an irritating tendency, I've noticed, to quote Latin as a defense. Note: incomprehensibility does not equal superiority). Apologies if I offended you, Donna; however, in future the "eye for an eye" technique might be best not used. He insults white women, you insult white men, and it just goes on. Better to use a superior argument than sink to the level of name-calling Stirling seems to have adopted. >As to my personal behavior - it is in most instances, including this one, exemplary. This is true. Never said anything to the contrary. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:59:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: BDG: The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I haven't read this novel recently, but it is one of my favorite books (cherished at home rather than in my office because reprints are hard to find, and I've gone through three copies), and I thought I'd jump in with a few comments here. I was born in 1955, in Moscow, Idaho (where the Sixties never came!), and started reading Russ with "When It Changed," printed in Ellison's _Dangerous Visions_ in the late sixties. I read TFM pretty soon after it came out--cannot recall the exact date--and have read it regularly ever since, like every year or so. Yes, it is difficult to read--extremely literary SF, extremely EARLY (with Delaney) example of narrative techniques that some people think Thomas Pynchon and others invented (like James Joyce gets credit for stream of consciousness storytelling when I think Virginia Woolf did it earlier and better in _Mrs. Dalloway_, but that's nother issue). The four women: Jael makes it pretty clear in a discussion with the others that all four ARE the "same" person (genetically) although all four were raised in four different human cultures. It might not be clear on first readings, but the other hints (all those "J" names, plus a fifth unnamed J, Joanna I think, being the author) "attack" the idea that there is some essential identity/self, that this essential identity/self is tied to gender, and so on and so forth. Same person/different people--at the same time. I agree that a major issue in the book is the 'heterosexual' women's reactions to the 'lesbian' (if all four are genetically the same, then what does that say about sexuality.....?) Anger/humor: I have had a lot of discussions with women who are younger than I am, and have more or less accepted that most of them see the anger as offputting and believe firmly that "we" are all past that. But then ate age 20 I had quite firm ideas about life, the universe and everything. And that included the fact that "I liked men" so I couldn't be a feminist. At age 43 I also have firm, passionate ideas about life, the universe, and everything. The problem is they aren't the same ones! And I can remember it fairly well, partly through all the writing I did. Generational conflicts in feminism have the potential to be as or more vicious than the conflicts around "race" and "sexuality." I see some intersting things starting up again (like quite passionate dystopia/utopian feminist SF novels by Esther Friesner and others who are of the "younger" generation", plus lots of gender bending stuff by the writers we've been talking about.) In terms of attitudes, I think region has as much to do with it as age. I teach in a "buckle of the Bible Belt," rural Texas, small towns of a few thousand where there are dozens of Southern Baptist churches. I see the same attitudes the "fifties" J (Janine?--sorry, I don't have the book here) expresses being expressed by students. I also see a whole lot of young women, early twenties, back in school, divorced, with several children because the husband they married right out of high school isn't their husband any more. I see students who think the ONLY thing a woman can do to support herself is being an elementary school teacher or a nurse. While these professions are important (and horribly paid), I do not believe they are the ONLY professions available to women. As a single woman in a mostly male dominated profession (English isn't as much anymore, but university teaching is), I have had to learn not to sit by the other woman in committee meetings because half the males present will make "jokes" about the secret feminist agenda we are pursuing. A lot of Russ' humor may make more sense to people working in the same academic culture she worked in throughout her life. (Oh, a sidenote as to why she hasn't written another novel--she has written quite eloquently of major disability issues because of back probloems--she switched to short pieces in Extra(Ordinary) People, I think, because she couldn't sit and had to write standing up. _What are We Fighting For_ probably took a long time because of those problems.) Different times? Yes and no. And don't forget what happens in other cultures/countries. I don't believe feminism is limited to one individual woman being happy with her good job and successful partnership (straight or lesbian or bi); I believe feminism is a commitment to an on-going process of working for all women. Women in industrialized nations may feel secure, that things like what is going on by the Taliban cannot happen to "us," but how secure are the "rights"? Separatism: As in so many things, it all depends on how you define it. In my own life, I interact professinally and I believe on the whole (there are some men on this list I've interacted electronically with before who can speak to this issue) pleasantly with many men, including scholars on other campuses, my colleagues, and my department head (there are only two women department heads on this campus, and one heads an all-female department--social work--and the other is my housemate who was recently appointed ad interim head before she got tenure because of a major crisis in the department), Dean, President, and so on. However--perhaps through a conscious choice or perhaps because of other factors, I have to say that ALL of my closest friends and emotional supporters are female. I consider that in some ways I lead a separatist life--but it's not just some sort of stomping off and refusing to talk to men. As I have often said, as long as the bombs/weapons/governments/banks/keep going with the list are primarily controlled by men, there is no way to do the fictional separatism of utopian novels. But I do not believe those writers advocate that in some simplistic way. I never wanted to get married, never wanted to have children, and did want to read, write, and have a lot of cats. So I did. I believe men can be feminists, if they choose to rethink a whole lot of things and commit to it, just as I believe women must go through a similar process. We have all been raised in a sexist culture (the degree of overt sexism may differ), and nobody is perfectly pure. Ditto for racism. In my classes, I have to moderate sexist generalizations by women students about men more often than I had to moderated sexist genrealizations by men students about women--an interesting situation I haven't entirely figured out. Must go get ready for class! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:07:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Octavia Butler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just read that interview (I'm writing my master's thesis on Butler and Sam Delany and a prof lent the mag to me). It's ok, but it's written for a non-science fiction reading audience. There's probably nothing in it that members of this list don't already know. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Phoebe Wray To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 7:11 AM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Octavia Butler >Octavia Butler is on the cover of the premiere issue of a new magazine -- >Black Issues Book Review -- with a nice interview besides. Other >stories/reviews about sff in the issue. > >Just got a copy and haven't read the whole thing (except those noted >above and skimming for sff stuff!) but it's a slick and ambitious >publication. > >Website is http://www.bibookreview.com > >best >phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:47:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: sigh: the usual Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hey y'all. this is your list-mistress. (largely an absentee one - sort of like the deist Deity - start it in motion and watch with amusement) but occasionally i take the time to wave a finger in the general direction of the toiling masses of feministsf discussants. herewith the finger: (1) stay on topic (2) move off-topic rants, attacks, quibbles, apologies, polite discussions, spirited denouncements, etc., - off the list. the commonality here is OFF-TOPIC. what is the topic? (all together now) - FEMINIST SCIENCE FICTION. and herewith the eyes and brain and mouth: observation: interesting in a list that is largely female, devoted to discussing feminist sf, that some large percentage of the postings are by males. and proportionally, even more disproportionate. (!) it reminds me of feminism 101 wherein we learn that in mixed-gender groups, women are routinely heard from much less often than men. challenge: without hurting discussion, without silencing or censoring anyone, without putting people on the spot - how can this virtual space PRACTICE feminism as well as discuss it? note - one need not even discuss this to act. one might simply think about it and carry out action. however, any discussion on this topic would be on-topic, as far as i'm concerned. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:22:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: the female man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My copy is anthologized in a book called Radical Utopias (including work by Delany and Charnas) which I think I got from the Quality Paperback book club. It's been a few years, though, and one thing I've learned from working at a bookstore is how dang FAST books seem to go out of print. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Dave Samuelson To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] the female man >As I said a month ago, I have a few copies (I think it's only appeared in >paperback) which I could part with, though I am unwilling to pay everyone's >postage and there's obviously delay time in getting it through the mail. > >Santanico wrote: > >> At 11:16 PM 4/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >"OK I haven't read the book yet - but I am going to as soon as [enter >> >excuse here]." >> > >> >FYI >> >I am finding it difficult to locate the book in our public >> >libraries....wondering how widespread that problem is ... >> >> >> >> Same here. I swear, I can't find the damn thing anywhere. The cornerstone of >> modern feminist literature (or so I've heard), and every bookshop and >> library seems to be mysteriously out of stock. >> >> And yet, the Gor novels are readily available. Sigh... >> >> Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:15:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: the female man & separatism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As I see it there are a whole lot of ways to practice separatism. One can have a primarily female social circle (I'm using female separatism as the example but one can generalize to any group); one can have a woman-only living arrangement; one can temporarily abstain from all contact with men, as in a short retreat or a sort of hermitage. In my experience, all of these things have a profound impact on the person practicing them, an impact which is almost always used to reinterpret the "rest of the world". To see oneself as normative is a an amazing experience if you don't grow up with it. To read someone else's fantasy of a world in which you are normative does something to your head: you start to recognize the ways in which you adjust to the world, you realize you don't always have to be the exception. Whileaway makes us all think, doesn't it? Then for all of us, it has made a change. When I'm not up for that, sometimes I'll go read two random chapters of E. Lynn's _The Northern Girl_ just to hear sentences in which "she" is the indefinite pronoun. What I learn from my various mini-separatist moments, I bring to my life, to my job, to my relationships, to my writing. I suspect that's true of everyone. And that ain't irrelevant at all. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:57:51 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Nicola Griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 5 Feb 99, at 0:54, Nicola Griffith wrote: > You're absolutely right. Though my novel was > written more as an answer to "When It Changed" > than to _The Female Man_. Nicola *Please* don't stop there! Could you perhaps expand a little on this? Like most non-creative people, I find an author's thought processes fascinating. I'd also like to ask you about the river in _Slow River_. I've heard it suggested that you modelled it after the Humber, but I personally believe you used the Tyne as a model. Are either of these two guesses correct? Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) __________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:55:46 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "S.M. Stirling" wrote: > It is possible for individual women to chose not to have more than > they must to do with men, and if that's their choice, that's fine -- > it's a free country, after all. > > It just isn't very culturally or politically significant. Some women > chose to live on Hutterite religious communes... and _they're_ not > very significant, either, big-picture-wise. (Neither are male > Hutterites, of course.) > >And thinking about it is VERY interesting for some women. > > -- Didn't say it wasn't. I was merely questioning its general > utility, except as a basis for literary satire, like Swift's lands of > talking horses and Lilliputians. "Culturally and politically significant": this begs the question, "significant to whom?" A large measure of feminism is realizing that for quite a lot of recorded history the opinions and lives of women were not deemed significant enough to even mention except as asides. The writing of history and the determination of what is "culturally significant" is a subjective process, if only because it means choosing not to include certain things, much as the process of physically seeing with one's eyes is a subjective process. I would like you to explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that separatism is insignificant. Maybe that would be an enrichment of the discussion rather than a blanket statement that insults all those who *do* find the idea or (incomplete) practice of separatism significant. I think Russ' chapter on separatism in *What Are We Fighting For?* quite ably outlines some of the reasons that it is an important concept in the feminist toolbox, even if many feminists don't take it seriously or are downright opposed to even thinking about it. And personally I find the question "what would we be like if we were not taught to be women" (to paraphrase Karen Joy Fowler) fascinating and intimately tied with ideas of separatism, women-only spaces and single-sex education. I think Whileaway is a thoughtful, full-blooded imagining of an answer to that question. Ditto the Riding Women of S.M. Charnas' *Motherlines* and the people of Jeep in Nicola Griffith's *Ammonite*. -- 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: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:00:35 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 5 Feb 99, at 0:02, donna simone wrote: > Russ is standing in womens space for the entirety > of her book. It is a dialogue with her sisters > opened to all. Men especially could approach/read > this book with awe and respect, for it is an open > door onto hearfelt, poignant and earnest dialogues > on womens concerns as we would discuss them > amongst each other Donna No one has any right to "awe and respect"; every author has to repeatedly earn awe and respect from each of her readers. That said, I would hate to give the impression that I found Russ' work boring or useless. On the contrary, both _The female man_ and _What..._ were endlessly fascinating and have both proven invaluable to me during the writing of my manual on assessing and evaluating staff during risk analysis. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:02:24 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Esther Friesner et al Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 5 Feb 99, at 8:59, Robin Reid wrote: > I see some intersting things starting up again (like quite > passionate dystopia/utopian feminist SF novels by Esther > Friesner and others who are of the "younger" generation", > plus lots of gender bending stuff by the writers we've > been talking about.) Robin Can you expand on this (with other authors/titles)? I was under the impression that Esther Friesner only wrote humorous works (Iike _Here be demons_, _Demon blues_, _Hooray for Hellywood_ and _The Sherwood Game_ - all of which I've read). My long CJ Cherryh hunt came to an abrupt, untimely end on Wednesday so I'm now pretty desperate for more book recommendations and we're leaving the US early Monday for the wilds of Brussels. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _______________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:06:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > Maybe you wish to become like the cyborgs in Star Trek First Contact > where the original borg was a woman who had been made into a cyborg. And I > say, no thanks! She seemed to be immortal, but I would rather not wish to > lose my humanity to do so. Yuck! I would not want to turn into a cyborg (or anything else, for that matter) just to live forever, either. This reminds me of that old idea of "uploading yourself" into the World Wide Web and existing as an "electronic stream of consciosness" inside networks. This theme has been explored, among others, by X-Files (the episode where Mulder is tortured in a VR porn nightmare and Scully has to save him) and Stepen King (Lawnmower Man). I could never get what would be so attractive about that. If I get to live forever, I'd like to keep my body, damn it. Without it, I could as well die and go to Heaven or whatever. After all, souls are immortal anyway (at least so I believe) it's the bodies that eventually turn into worm food. So it's the immortality of the body -- the way it is, wihtout any cyborg appendages -- together with the mind is what I consider real immortality. Plus, the cyborgs in First Contact -- The Borg -- were not even santient species in full sense. They were some ant-type collective consciousness parts. Zombies on remote control. To me, turning into such thing is more like actual death than "immortality". IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:15:57 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 3:25:18 AM Mountain Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: << Getting sick. Okay, fine, that's reasonable. Nobody likes losing their faculties. That seems to be the main reason people don't want to die, from general consensus. But getting sick doesn't mean death necessarily follows straight away. >> -- we should clarify; are we talking about death, or aging? Aging effectively means getting sicker and sicker until you die, as the homeostatic mechanisms of the body break down. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:16:51 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: worthless old people In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > Didnt you give an example with the Highlander series? Yet whether or not > its sour grapes or not I sorta still prefer to die when I die and not > extend it so long as to become inhuman. I don't think the "immortals" of Highlander are inhuman. It's just I don't like the idea of having to kill someone to feed on their immortality. Besides, it always makes me wonder what they are going to do when they run out of "bad guys" -- start killing each other? If "in the end, there is only one", I wonder what happens when only "good ones" are left. About turning inhuman in general -- i don't think there is any reason why that would be a prerequisite to living forever. I don't see why one have to lose one's humanity in order to get there. And if "living too long" is what makes one inhuman, then following the same logic -- if a thousand-year-old person would be "less human" than a ninety-year-old, would that mean that the ninety-year-old is "less human" than a teenager? Curious, Marina > > Also risking beating a dead horse, > > Bertina > bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Marina wrote: > > > Well, risking to beat this horse to death -- it is amazing how many times > > the theme of immortality as a cause of some bad nasty social deviations > > (or at least a source of deep personal unhappinness) comes up in science > > fiction. I don't think I remeber even one positive image of immortality > > (other than that First Man person in The Lord of the Rings) in science > > fiction of fantasy alike. I wonder if it is some sort of Sour Grapes > > Syndrom -- since we cannot live forever, let's convince ourselves that > > it's not something we'd want anyway. > > > > Seriously -- does anyone know about a _positive_ example of immortality in > > science fiction? I'd like to read (or watch) it. ( I would not count > > Highlander, though, since there you have to periodically kill other > > immortals to prolong your own existence -- which I won't consider > > positive by any means). > > > > Marina > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Big Yellow > > Woman wrote: > > > > > > > Joyce Jones wrote: > > > a person is alive as > > > > long as s/he is alive and does not have a "duty" to give up that life. > > > > > > > > > > There was as ST Next GEneration episode where there was a culture that, > > > due to overpopulation, expected people to off themselves at 60(?). > > > People willingly did this for the good of all and the send off was a > > > huge celebration. To refuse to do this was the most shameful thing you > > > could do to yourself and family. Of course the character on that > > > episode who was expected to die (prematurely by dominant standards) was > > > a brilliant scientist of some kind, and everyone tries to persuade him > > > to stay alive. I think one of the crew is in love with him on top of it. > > > In the end, he goes home to do his duty. Hmmm. > > > > > > Susan > > > > > > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > > is selling at the time." > > Naomi Wolf > > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:21:58 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 6:13:52 AM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: >Men have been using separatism for eons to maintain their power and control. I believe men occupy your 'big picture". >> --Actually, men have been using _exculsion_ for eons to maintain their power and control, which is a very different thing. Men have occupied the locus of power and unjustly excluded women therefrom. If you want power, you have to get in to the locus. Separating yourself from it just dis-empowers you all the more thoroughly. Eg., suffrage activists didn't set up a separate Parliament -- they demanded votes and a place in the _real_ Parliament. Real politics has to involve society-as-a-whole, great gobs of people, and the levers of power. The whole game is about access to those levers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:50:29 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Chicago bookshops MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01FE_01BE5140.C85011C0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01BE5140.C85011C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Many thanks for all the suggestions, which I am passing on to my friend. Lesley Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:25:31 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: OT - Attacks (was BDG ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 7:07:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: >Lest anyone think I am cowed.> -- rather than exercises in competitive intimidation, how about engaging the argument? You know, I say "X because of Y", and you say "X doesn't follow from Y because of Z", and I say "gee, I hadn't thought of that" or something. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:29:47 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: OT - Attacks (was BDG ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 7:55:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: >Stirling, what exactly prompted you to make this extremely insulting and generalised comment I have no idea - to suggest that just because a person is white, middle-class, female or an academic they do not have a right to a political opinion is ludicrous >> -- didn't say they didn't have a right to an opinion. I said that academics tend to mistake their insular bun-fights and word-games for real politics, which is often all too true, and which has diverted a great deal of energy from genuine progressive politics over the past 20 years. Real politics is about the balance of forces in society as a whole, as opposed, to, say, the campus of the University of X. It's "big fish in little pond" syndrome. Everyone is prone to it, of course. Every so often I find myself thinking that the Nebula is really important, and have to pull myself back to reality with a thud. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:37:46 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: BDG: The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 8:09:30 AM Mountain Standard Time, Robin_Reid@TAMU- COMMERCE.EDU writes: << I see some intersting things starting up again (like quite passionate dystopia/utopian feminist SF novels by Esther Friesner -- I'll have to tell Esther that's she's a member of the younger generation... 8-). She'll be tickled pink. >In terms of attitudes, I think region has as much to do with it as age. -- very good point. "Time" happens at different rates in different areas. >A lot of Russ' humor may make more sense to people working in the same academic culture she worked in throughout her life. -- and, re: your earlier point, a West Texas college is a very different environment from, say, Berkeley. >Women in industrialized nations may feel secure, that things like what is going on by the Taliban cannot happen to "us," but how secure are the "rights"? -- personally I'd advocate "emphatic re-education" for the Taliban. (Something on the order of strapping them over the muzzles of cannon and pulling the lanyard... 8-). It's a bad sign that there isn't more agitation and militancy about what's going on in Afghanistan -- partly, I suppose, because it's so bad it's unbelievable. >As I have often said, as long as the bombs/weapons/governments/banks/keep going with the list are primarily controlled by men, there is no way to do the fictional separatism of utopian novels. -- well, yeah. Glad to have someone else point this out. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:41:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Real politics has to involve society-as-a-whole, great gobs of people, and the >levers of power. The whole game is about access to those levers. I guess the personal isn't political anymore. The master's tools now are the *only* thing that will tear down the master's house. Thank goodness we no longer have those dippy, irrelevant consciousness raising groups which have *no relationship whatsoever* to the feminism of the 60s and 70s. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:45:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902040202.UAA74862@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > At 04:22 PM 3/02/99 -0600, you wrote: > > >Well, I can tell you one thing -- 50-year-old women in America > >are healthier and better looking than 25-year-old married women in my > >country. So apparently, "fighting it" is not as useless and futile. > > Maybe so, but the fact remains: _they're still going to die_! Who cares if > they're still fit and healthy at age 102? LOL! There is a big-O difference between being an active human being for 15 years and for 80. If there isn't any for you -- hell, no one is going to force you to stay alive longer than you want to. > > You know, I think I'll probably drop out of this ridiculous argument after > this. It's astonishing to think that so many otherwise rational people here > actually think that it's possible to live forever. I gave up believing this > when I was eight. Once again -- we are talking about science fiction. You've gotta pay attention, or it will get real hard to understand. By the way, I like the way you conduct your argument :). Just don't complain if others do it the same way. I've noticed that the most obnoxios people tend to start whining about "manners" whenever they are fed their own candy. > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > > is selling at the time." > > Naomi Wolf > > How someone who endorses cosmetic surgery can have this as a sig I'm afraid > I'll never know... Well, there are lots of things that might be beyond your comprehension, so don't feel too bad. After all, you are into acceptance of inevitable, right? Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:23:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > Men have occupied the locus of power and unjustly excluded women therefrom. > > If you want power, you have to get in to the locus. Separating yourself from > it just dis-empowers you all the more thoroughly. Alternately, you can refuse to play entirely and stop depending on the locus of power that the other group has. You can re-invent the rules. Not everyone wants to do this--most people just want to be able to succeed under the current rules. But that's not the only option. Has anyone here read "The City, Not Long After" by Pat Murphy? That book changed the way I think about concepts of power struggles, although it's hard to tell if that was an intended effect or not. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I wanna be mesmerizing too" --Liz Phair ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:25:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: That Hell-Bound Train In-Reply-To: <36B8F0C2.548DA369@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Interesting. Does that mean that the protagonist "lives forever" by extending one given moment? Is he able to do anything while the time stops (i.e. move around and so on)? I think this sounds a little different from immortality as it is usually seen. In this case, you don't stay the same while everything else ages and such, but to the contrary -- you have an eternity of time that for the rest of the world is just one moment. I don't know if that would be as much fun to exist forever in a "frozen moment". Or did I misunderstand what it was? In any case, thank you -- I'll try to find this book. It sounds interesting. Marina On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > I can't remember or locate who asked about this Robert Bloch story that concerns > a down-and-outer in love with trains whom the devil (in the form of a train > conductor) gives a special watch he can stop to preserve a given moment forever. > Neither good times nor bad convince him to quit, till that final heart attack (I > think) when the train comes to get him. Satan thinks he has him but > > (Spoiler!) > > he then stops the watch to beat the devil so he can ride the train to hell > forever, never having to debark. It also seems like a positive view of > immortality, since the discussion just got around to that as well. > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:45:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephany Burge Subject: Re: the female man In-Reply-To: <199902050427.WAA77154@piglet.cc.uic.edu>; from Santanico on Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:27:18PM -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:27:18PM -0600, Santanico writes... > Same here. I swear, I can't find the damn thing anywhere. The cornerstone of > modern feminist literature (or so I've heard), and every bookshop and > library seems to be mysteriously out of stock. I got mine through amazon.com. It only takes about three days to arrive. -stephany ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:57:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: <36BB30A2.DBC84032@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > And personally I find the > question "what would we be like if we were not taught to be women" (to > paraphrase Karen Joy Fowler) fascinating and intimately tied with ideas > of separatism, women-only spaces and single-sex education. I think > Whileaway is a thoughtful, full-blooded imagining of an answer to that > question. Ditto the Riding Women of S.M. Charnas' *Motherlines* and the > people of Jeep in Nicola Griffith's *Ammonite*. > > -- As was the much shorter, but equally apt Sylvia answer to one of Harry's customers: "Face it, Syl, you need us. Can you imagine a world without men?" "No crime, and lots of fat, happy women." Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:27:31 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephany Burge Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man In-Reply-To: <36BA16E0.A94181B3@earthlink.net>; from Allyson Shaw on Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 01:53:46PM -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii (for those of you who don't remember, I'm the one who didn't get the humor of the book or understand it. i can finally recall finding parts of it amusing, especially those recounted by the people on this list) Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 01:53:46PM -0800, Allyson Shaw writes... > I have to admit that at first I didn't like this book-- I was alienated by > its anger, and it made me uncomfortable because I had to rethink my > feminism. (I suppose that's a good thing.) I agree here. Between the writing style & the anger, I was completely lost. The book did make me think about my feminism too. Although, I'm not sure if I've ever really thought about it. I've always just assumed things... like it was fine to study engineering, not get married, not wear makeup, etc. Sure, other people did different things, but it never mattered to me (with the exclusion of junior high). On a personal level, I couldn't understand where the characters were coming from. The more I thought about it, the more I could see how applicable this book could still be. Regardless, this has been a fascinating discussion. I've decided to give it Russ another chance. I'm reading "The Hidden Side of the Moon." Short stories will probably be easier for me to follow... Although even in the first story (Little Dirty Girl), I can see where my background/assumptions differ from hers. She describes all the little girls of Seattle as "obedient and feminine." The dirty girl is different (my intrepretation) because she goes out and plays, gets dirty & enjoys herself. I'm not even going to ask "didn't all little girls go catch frogs, climb trees and get dirty?" :) The point of my original post was to say that things have in fact improved if people like myself can honestly say they don't understand where Russ is coming from. Don't get me wrong here, there are parts of it I do "get" but a lot of it simply escaped me. > I found the style of the book a bit like Kathy Acker's style, but Russ seems > less interested in ambiguity and junk language than Acker. I never could follow her books either... Robin, I really enjoyed your post. I also grew up in Idaho and went to school in Moscow. Perhaps my experience in Idaho was abnormal. My parents were hippies. Mom went to work while dad stayed home to raise my brother & I. It was always my father & my male science teachers who were the most encouraging to me. I had forgotten that such an attitude is not prevalent in all of the US. Thanks for reminding me. -stephany ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:41:40 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: That Hell-Bound Train-Marina (spoilage of what little hasn't been revealed) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Actually, "That Hell-Bound Train" maintains a period of transition (the gimmick of the story is a "time-stopping"--actually change-stopping--pocket-watch the devil gives the protag) rather than confers immortality--the characters are already dead and facing damnation, the protag just causes the journey to Hell to become endless, and unpleasant only for Satan itself. Or so one gathers. Aside from such Robert Bloch collections as THE BEST OF RB, you can find this story in THE HUGO WINNERS, VOL. 1, and Many other places. Despite much being given away here, it's worth the read. (But I'm a Bloch-head going way back.) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:08:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Nicola Griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: << Nicola *Please* don't stop there! Could you perhaps expand a little on this? Like most non-creative people, I find an author's thought processes fascinating. I'd also like to ask you about the river in _Slow River_. I've heard it suggested that you modelled it after the Humber, but I personally believe you used the Tyne as a model. Are either of these two guesses correct? >> Mike, I don't want to take up bandwidth here and interrupt the BDG but I've written about "When It Changed" in an essay called _Living Fiction and Storybook Lives_ . I won't repeat it here because you can find either in Altair #2 or on my website at: http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola/living_fiction.htp There's a lot (probably more than anyone wants to know ) about my thought processes in that essay. I don't recall _The Female Man_ in great detail (I read it nearly twenty years ago), but I seem to remember thinking, when I read it, that Janet's attitude in the novel (self-confidence) was *much* more consistent with her history and upbringing than her attitude in the novella (instant feelings of inferiority on meeting men for the first time). It would be interesting to find out what others think about this. As for _Slow River_, I based the anonymous city on Hull, where I lived for more than ten years so. However, the river isn't the Humber, but the River Hull, the body of water from which Hull gets its name (which is actually Kingston-upon-Hull). Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:53:43 -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: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton said: Mike, try as I might, I cannot find where I said that Russ "has any right to" anything in my comments. Believe the key word was "could" in fact. donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:20:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Feminist space (was OT: attacks) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stirling said: <-- rather than exercises in competitive intimidation, how about engaging the argument? You know, I say "X because of Y", and you say "X doesn't follow from Y because of Z", and I say "gee, I hadn't thought of that" or something.> I see challenging someone's _opinion_ with what one believes to be "better" logic or different pieces of information _as_ competitive intimidation. I also have never seen this list as a space for "arguing", but as a space for being able to be heard as one is and to share information - I.e. feminist space. And an open apology to Laura Quilter for my part in provoking her posting. Figures. I was always the one the teacher turned around and caught because I was generally the last to join in. donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:27:15 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: OT - Attacks (was BDG ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 6:07:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: << As to my personal behavior - it is in most instances, including this one, exemplary. >> Yea, Donna!! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:53:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: The Female Man vs. "When It Changed" In-Reply-To: <273743cb.36bb87e6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:08 PM 2/5/99 EST, Nicola Griffith wrote: >I don't recall _The Female Man_ in great detail (I >read it nearly twenty years ago), but I seem to remember thinking, when I read >it, that Janet's attitude in the novel (self-confidence) was *much* more >consistent with her history and upbringing than her attitude in the novella >(instant feelings of inferiority on meeting men for the first time). It would >be interesting to find out what others think about this. I felt exactly the same thing. I read "When It Changed" several years after *The Female Man* and found myself wondering why anyone would prefer it. It struck me as psychologically false and irritating that the narrator would be so worried by the men. As in the novel *Angel Island* (which I have not read, but which has been discussed on the list), there seemed to be an underlying assumption that men would always be able to intimidate women, no matter when, no matter where. I don't believe it, and I think it's a safe bet that Russ doesn't believe it any longer either, if she ever truly did. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:56:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jesse-- I'm sure you are being sarcastic here, but I wish we wouldn't have to resort to that. I'm interested in what you are saying-- Is there a need for consciousness raising groups now? When I was in college I belonged to one and I don't know if it really helped my politics or my sense of self-- it might have been the group. Plus, we were not in the middle of a large movement (this was the late 80's-- things were pretty inward looking and defeatist). I don't think we should let certain people bait us, and I think we should address each other, those who are sympathetic or who are wanting a dialog instead of those are on this list for non-constructive reasons. I don't want to get into the fray here, but I don't think we should let those who are approaching discussion with cynicism effect how we phrase our arguments. And as for Lorde's idea of not using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house-- I was wondering if that would apply to Russ' non-linear narrative. If she can use a fragmented narrative and blend the identities of her characters she avoids a linear, demarcated structure, a structure which could be associated with patriarchy. Any ideas on this? Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >Real politics has to involve society-as-a-whole, great gobs of people, and the > >levers of power. The whole game is about access to those levers. > > I guess the personal isn't political anymore. The master's tools now are the > *only* thing that will tear down the master's house. Thank goodness we no > longer have those dippy, irrelevant consciousness raising groups which have > *no relationship whatsoever* to the feminism of the 60s and 70s. > > jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:11:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: FEMALE MAN availability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mysterious Galaxy still has copies, FWIW. Sad to hear it's not available on every library shelf, though... Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:57:55 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: immortality again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:45 PM 5/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >LOL! There is a big-O difference between being an active human >being for 15 years and for 80. If there isn't any for you -- hell, no one >is going to force you to stay alive longer than you want to. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I _was_ trying to say was simply that good health at age 80's a great thing to have, sure, but it isn't going to stop you from dying, which is what the original poster (which I believe was you) was apparently indicating. >Once again -- we are talking about science fiction. You've gotta pay >attention, or it will get real hard to understand. Please be so kind as to not patronise me. I don't agree with a lot of things you say, but I've never effectively called you "stupid". >By the way, I like the way you conduct your argument :). Just don't >complain if others do it the same way. I've noticed that the most >obnoxios people tend to start whining about "manners" whenever they are >fed their own candy. So now I'm one of the "most obnoxious" people on the list, because I conduct my arguments in conversational rather than academic English? Right. From now on, I'll see if I can quote a statistic or obscure feminist scholar every time I get into a debate. Maybe that'll sound more polite. >Well, there are lots of things that might be beyond your comprehension, so >don't feel too bad. After all, you are into acceptance of inevitable, >right? Again, don't patronise me. You seem to be veering off the path of reasonable debate and into the downright insulting. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:58:40 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: <36BBA136.4AB2EB59@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, all, I haven't yet finished this round of reading the Female Man - the proper time for me came around about five months ago, so this is sluggish and against the grain - but I have to cheer Jessi Strickgold on here. Like Walk to the End of the World, I found the Female Man as timely and necessary in its unapologetic anger as Walk still is. Especially to remember a time before it changed, when women were angry without permission, without conciliation, without placating, as a badge of our right to humanity. Sarcasm is still entirely appropriate. Kathleen On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Allyson Shaw wrote: > Hi Jesse-- I'm sure you are being sarcastic here, but I wish we wouldn't have to > resort to that. I'm interested in what you are saying-- Is there a need for > consciousness raising groups now? When I was in college I belonged to one and I > don't know if it really helped my politics or my sense of self-- it might have > been the group. Plus, we were not in the middle of a large movement (this was the > late 80's-- things were pretty inward looking and defeatist). > > > > Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > > > >Real politics has to involve society-as-a-whole, great gobs of people, and the > > >levers of power. The whole game is about access to those levers. > > > > I guess the personal isn't political anymore. The master's tools now are the > > *only* thing that will tear down the master's house. Thank goodness we no > > longer have those dippy, irrelevant consciousness raising groups which have > > *no relationship whatsoever* to the feminism of the 60s and 70s. > > > > jessie > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:58:26 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-05 05:25:18 EST, you write: << I don't know if there really is an afterlife - anyone who says they know for sure is either a religious nut or a charlatan. >> Actually, I would say that they have a very strong faith. I know that for me there is an afterlife--it is part of my faith. However, for you, that may not be true. Please don't attack me as a "religious nut" because of my faith; and I won't attack you as a "doomed to hell forever atheist" (the words of Southern Baptist preachers I heard as a child--not mine) because you don't have the same faith. Gently, Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:58:24 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-05 14:07:07 EST, you write: << > Russ is standing in womens space for the entirety > of her book. It is a dialogue with her sisters > opened to all. Men especially could approach/read > this book with awe and respect, for it is an open > door onto hearfelt, poignant and earnest dialogues > on womens concerns as we would discuss them > amongst each other Donna No one has any right to "awe and respect"; every author has to repeatedly earn awe and respect from each of her readers. >> Mike, I don't read anywhere in Donna's posting that she said Russ is "entitled to" or "has a right to" awe and respect. What she said was, "Men especially could approach/read this book with awe and respect". "Could"--not "have to". But, in the next part of that statement she gives you the reason why men (my words) should approach this book with awe and respect, namely that it is a chance for men to see our "heartfelt" discussions about the world around us as "we would discuss them with each other". In other words it is a chance for you men to get a glimpse into the world that women inhabit and share with each other, but not with men--not even those we love. In other words, she states that Russ has earned awe and respect. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:14:13 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:58 PM 5/02/99 EST, you wrote: >Actually, I would say that they have a very strong faith. I know that for me >there is an afterlife--it is part of my faith. However, for you, that may not >be true. Please don't attack me as a "religious nut" because of my faith; and >I won't attack you as a "doomed to hell forever atheist" (the words of >Southern Baptist preachers I heard as a child--not mine) because you don't >have the same faith. Ah, but _believing_ strongly in an afterlife isn't the same as having absolute, irrefutable _knowledge_ that there is one. I was talking concrete evidence, which of course the living will never possess. Strong belief is fine (apologies for the "religious nut" comment), but you still can't really claim to know with absolute certainty that there is an afterlife. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 22:21:38 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-05 22:15:13 EST, you write: << Ah, but _believing_ strongly in an afterlife isn't the same as having absolute, irrefutable _knowledge_ that there is one. I was talking concrete evidence, which of course the living will never possess. Strong belief is fine (apologies for the "religious nut" comment), but you still can't really claim to know with absolute certainty that there is an afterlife. Sant. >> You are correct that I do not have absolute, irrefutable "knowledge". And also correct that the only way to gain that type of knowledge is to actually die--so of course anyone who claims to have such knowledge is, to be polite, not being very truthful. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:26:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sometimes I find this list way too edgy. Despite my earlier posts which discussed ambivalence about anger, I have no problem with the anger driving Jessi's post, and in fact share her frustration. I just think sarcasm really doesn't work on email at all, and I was trying to engage some of the ideas she brought up. Why would you take my post as an attack? Can you cut a "sister" some slack? (my attempt at email sarcasm) --Allyson Keith wrote: > Hi, all, > > I haven't yet finished this round of reading the Female Man - the proper > time for me came around about five months ago, so this is sluggish and > against the grain - but I have to cheer Jessi Strickgold on here. Like > Walk to the End of the World, I found the Female Man as timely and > necessary in its unapologetic anger as Walk still is. Especially to > remember a time before it changed, when women were angry without > permission, without conciliation, without placating, as a badge of our > right to humanity. Sarcasm is still entirely appropriate. > > Kathleen > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Allyson Shaw wrote: > > > Hi Jesse-- I'm sure you are being sarcastic here, but I wish we wouldn't have to > > resort to that. I'm interested in what you are saying-- Is there a need for > > consciousness raising groups now? When I was in college I belonged to one and I > > don't know if it really helped my politics or my sense of self-- it might have > > been the group. Plus, we were not in the middle of a large movement (this was the > > late 80's-- things were pretty inward looking and defeatist). > > > > > > > > > Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > > > > > >Real politics has to involve society-as-a-whole, great gobs of people, and the > > > >levers of power. The whole game is about access to those levers. > > > > > > I guess the personal isn't political anymore. The master's tools now are the > > > *only* thing that will tear down the master's house. Thank goodness we no > > > longer have those dippy, irrelevant consciousness raising groups which have > > > *no relationship whatsoever* to the feminism of the 60s and 70s. > > > > > > jessie > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:17:33 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 1:23:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, susan@APOCALYPSE.ORG writes: << "The City, Not Long After" by Pat Murphy? >> This is a new one to me. Anybody know what it was about? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:50:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man & The City, Not Long After In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Feb 1999 23:17:33 EST." <47afa275.36bbc25d@aol.com> I was indeed being sarcastic. Here's the thing: I think that one of the greatest things feminism has given me is the understanding that one does not have to work "within the power structure" to get results; indeed, sometimes the power structure is exactly what is oppressive. To follow up the example given previously, the suffragettes didn't try to form a parallel government, but to truly work within the power structure would have involved "getting the vote" by campaigning to get men to vote the way women wanted them to. Sure, that's what was done in order to *give* women the vote; but the activity itself was an acknowledgement that women weren't interested in doing that any longer than they had to. Likewise, although I was born too late for the original consciousness-raising groups, my understanding is that their value was that by working *outside* the political norms, they allowed women to give a name to their problems and their own ideals. No workshop with helpful men would have let a women in 1960 say "women are an oppressed group". It was stepping outside of that context, coming together without the powerful people, that allowed women to make up a whole new vocabulary of ideas. I felt overwhelmingly that I should never have to explain that on a list devoted to discussion of feminist works. I don't mind discussing it; I like to hear the way in which other people found this to be true or not true for themselves. I deeply, deeply resent feeling that I have to lay that all out for people who, frankly, must have heard it all before. So I meant it as a sort of shorthand to say, "that statement is in direct opposition to some of the basic principles of feminism". My way of, as you suggested, not being baited (too much). To answer another question which actually turns out to be sort of related: _The City, Not Long After_ is about a post-apocalyptic (plague, I believe) society; it's set in the Bay Area and the main action occurs in San Francisco, which is almost uninhabited. The residents use a unique form of non-violent resistance to defeat an army. This is a vast oversimplification. It's a lovely book, and it's easy to read it as a meditation on using one's own tools to bring down the master's house. In this case the lesson is double, because to engage the army on its own terms is not only hopeless (there are maybe a couple dozen resisters), but also self-destructive because the peaceful residents of the city would have to become killers. To win under those conditions would be to lose what they were fighting for. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:16:41 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 2:23:42 PM Mountain Standard Time, susan@APOCALYPSE.ORG writes: >Alternately, you can refuse to play entirely and stop depending on the locus of >power that the other group has. -- There's a rather interesting, and in some ways proto-feminist, series of fantasies by Leslie Anne Barringer, dating from the 20's. In the course of one of them ("Shy Leopardess") a heroic knight is imprisoned in the castle of an evil duke, who among his other wickednesses makes guests fight a lion in a pit for the amusement of himself and his guests. The knight asks the servitor of the evil duke: "What if I refuse to fight?" The servitor replies: "Well, the audience will be disappointed... but the lion won't mind getting an easy meal." Back a ways, when I was helping to teach a womens' self-defense course at the dojo I was attending, we made this point to women who were doubtful about "descending to their level" by learning to use violence. Ie., that coercion is a unilateral form of communication -- they talk the talk, you have to walk the walk willy-nilly. Coercion is power raw and simple; "do what I want or I'll hit you", or as Lenin put it, "kto shtvo" (sp., my Russian is rusty). That's the ultimate political question: who whom. You don't get to resign from that game. >The City, Not Long After. -- Good book, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But the defenders had the author on their side, and it _was_ a fantasy... 8-). Ursula LeGuin tends to pull that sort of fast one too. Eg., in that one where the descendants of pacifist-anarchist political exiles are stranded on the same planet with the descendants of mafiosi. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:23:57 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 2:57:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, kmhouse@HALCYON.COM writes: >"Face it, Syl, you need us. Can you imagine a world without men?" >"No crime, and lots of fat, happy women." >> -- Russ is rather more realistic than that. Back when I was in law, I met fair number of extremely violent criminal women -- everything from murder through sexual assault to extortion. And in fact, while the absolute number is still smaller, the rate of violent offenses among women has increased by an order of magnitude more than among men. Changes in the sexual division of labor apply to the criminal sector, too. I read the transcript of an interview with one inmate, who'd doing time on penny-ante raps much of her life (the usual, prostitution, drugs, shoplifting) and then got sent up for hard time -- assault with a deadly weapon, attempted homicide. When asked why the change, she said she'd been stealing a sweater from a J.C. Penny, when it suddenly struck her -- why was she wasting her time with this **it? "So I got a gun and went to the bank." Raised consciousness comes in all varieties... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:28:26 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 1:41:58 PM Mountain Standard Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM writes: >I guess the personal isn't political anymore. >> -- all politics starts with the personal, and then -- if it's to accomplish anything -- moves on to the collective. Individuals are weak; the collective is strong. Nobody cared if 6 women met in their living rooms to exchange 'click' moments. When 600,000 or 6,000,000 did, and then got together and then started arguing and demonstrating and organizing (and voting), things were quite different. "Necessary but not sufficient" is the phrase that comes to mind. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:31:59 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 8:04:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: >I know that for me there is an afterlife--it is part of my faith. However, for you, that may not be true. >> -- I too am not interested in a debate on that specific issue, but that statement is a violation of the law of the excluded middle (two mutually contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:33:32 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 10:17:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: > Back a ways, when I was helping to teach a womens' self-defense course at the > dojo I was attending, we made this point to women who were doubtful about > "descending to their level" by learning to use violence. > > Ie., that coercion is a unilateral form of communication -- they talk the > talk, you have to walk the walk willy-nilly. Coercion is power raw and > simple; "do what I want or I'll hit you", or as Lenin put it, "kto shtvo" > (sp., my Russian is rusty). That's the ultimate political question: who > whom. You don't get to resign from that game. I taught women's self defence, too, for a few years. I believe firmly that if someone hits you (or even tries to, or even says they want to), kick the crap out of the bastard. However, Ghandi was a pacifist, and he didn't do so badly. Individual situation versus institutional situation: I think we might be talking apples and oranges here. But to keep to sf/f, and address the question of the author pulling a fast one, did anyone read that short story (can't remember title, author, or even the magazine--she said helpfully ) that came out a few years ago which posited an alternate history where Hitler and his friends were in power in India instead of the British; they mowed down Ghandi and his followers without blinking. Interesting piece. If someone who knew nothing about history read the "real" history and then read this one, which would they more likely to believe as realistic? Fiction can be weird, but truth can be weirder. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:35:37 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 8:34:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, allyshaw@earthlink.net writes: >Despite my earlier posts which discussed ambivalence about anger, >> -- as an aside, our society does tend to make women ambiguous about expressing anger (or outright aggression.) We ran into this at my dojo -- women would come in and be unable, even in a practice situation, to hit somebody in any but an extremely symbolic "patting" manner, tentative and apologetic. It usually required several weeks of "reprogramming" to overcome this conditioned reflex, but when we did, the results were often spectacular. (Then we had to work on when it was appropriate to hit and when to stop, short of jumping up and down on a pile of splintered bone and gray goo... 8-).) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:43:39 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: BDG The Female Man & The City, Not Long After Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 10:50:50 PM Mountain Standard Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM writes: non-violent resistance... -- in fact only works on... ummm, "nice guys". (Relative to, say, Heinrich Himmler and the Waffen SS, even "Bull Connor" was a nice guy.) Unless you have the author on your side, that is... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:50:02 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/99 11:35:06 PM Mountain Standard Time, NicolaZ@AOL.COM writes: >>However, Ghandi was a pacifist, and he didn't do so badly. Individual situation versus institutional situation: I think we might be talking apples and oranges here. -- well, not really. That's Harry Turtledove you're thinking of, a rather chilling little alternate-history story called "The Last Article", about what Gandhi does when the Nazis occupy India. >If someone who knew nothing about history read the "real" history and then read this one, which would they more likely to believe as realistic? Fiction can be weird, but truth can be weirder. -- well, there's a good deal of difference between Hitler and the British Raj, and between the 20th century British and their ancestors. Clive or someone of that ilk would just have strapped Gandhi across the muzzle of a cannon and jerked the lanyard. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:38:12 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 1:36:33 AM Mountain Standard Time, kmhouse@HALCYON.COM writes: >Especially to remember a time before it changed, when women were angry without permission, without conciliation, without placating, as a badge of our right to humanity. >> -- by all means... 8-). Although it's important to be angry at the right people. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:52:10 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man & The City, Not Long After Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 5:50:50 AM, Jessie wrote: <> This has a resonance with the other discussion about separateness and Womanspace. Part of their "value" also was that they were WERE Woman-space. No Men Allowed, a fact that caused them to be ridiculed and/or suspected by both men and women. There were many women who found it difficult to say "women are an oppressed group." They felt guilty, embarrassed and sometimes downright scared. Within the group, however, they were able to confront the issue and their own feelings about it. To be able to say, out loud: I feel guilty saying this was the first step towards acknowledging their own oppression. The Space created that opportunity. And yes, we all know this. Doesn't hurt to remember. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:36:05 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: 36 degrees Subject: Re: The City, Not Long After Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain jessie said: >_The City, Not Long After_ is about a post-apocalyptic (plague, I >believe) society; it's set in the Bay Area and the main action occurs >in San Francisco, which is almost uninhabited. The residents use a >unique form of non-violent resistance to defeat an army. This is a >vast oversimplification. It's a lovely book, and it's easy to read it >as a meditation on using one's own tools to bring down the master's >house. In this case the lesson is double, because to engage the army >on its own terms is not only hopeless (there are maybe a couple dozen >resisters), but also self-destructive because the peaceful residents >of the city would have to become killers. To win under those >conditions would be to lose what they were fighting for. huh. sounds v. like starhawk's _the fifth sacred thing_ (which was also set in the bay area). is there a spiritual dimension to their resistance? & do you know when it came out? just curious-- johanna ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:38:01 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 12:39:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Although it's important to be angry at the right people. >> If it was people she was angry at, I don't think she would have done such multiple-inner examinations, or used separate worlds, or included that ubiquitous unspoken loneliness for male humanity. I think it is terribly important to listen to philosophers like Russ as speaking to a condition, not dismiss them as 'man-haters'. We don't consider Abraham Lincoln a man-hater, just someone who placed his power on the side of freedom. Russ is on the side of freedom and humanity. Anger, being angry at someone, fighting, drawing one's six-shooter...these are 'problem solving' techniques associated with male behavior that is promulgated in so many stories. It is easy to misidentify something new, as anger. It is easy to identify being fed-up, being desperate for some real discourse, for a literate and human Davy, for anger. But it is not. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:41:43 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: BDG The Female Man & The City, Not Long After Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 5:53:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Zozie@AOL.COM writes: << To be able to say, out loud: I feel guilty saying this was the first step towards acknowledging their own oppression. The Space created that opportunity. >> I have a question here. I started college, in the sciences, in (ooh, just yesterday) 1968. The science classes were written for white males, the language and tone of the text was white male, the knowledge one was supposed to enter the class with was knowledge women would not likely have, and the direction of science was defined by the definition of maleness. I have seen the science, and science texts, change under the influence of the wider, inclusive view of women. Do you think science fiction has changed, do you think it has in any way influence actual science? Has anybody read "Women of Academe", and if so, what do you think of it? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:23:29 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:16:41 EST, S.M. Stirling wrote: >>The City, Not Long After. > > -- Good book, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But the defenders had the > author on their side, and it _was_ a fantasy... 8-). Ursula LeGuin > tends to pull that sort of fast one too. > > Eg., in that one where the descendants of pacifist-anarchist political > exiles are stranded on the same planet with the descendants of mafiosi. Interesting that you mention this book. I don't think her message can be boiled down to anything that simple. The Shantih Towners engage in passive resistance à la Gandhi and it gets them nowhere! Several of their number are killed (including one of the main characters) and the survivors begin talks with the Victoria mafia types that may not change much at all. So the main character, Luz, leaves in the middle of the night with several others to found a secret colony. It's a theme Le Guin has treated before, most famously in her story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" -- the option of simply leaving the confrontation or relationship that is so destructive. I find that this option is denigrated as "running away", the option of the coward, so often in our society. I think that is macho bullshit. Sometimes it really is the best choice. Not all the time. Sometimes not even possible. But it's good to be reminded of it. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:10:43 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: BDG The Female Man/expression of anger Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 11:40:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >If it was people she was angry at... -- if someone does you the dirty, it's illogical not to be angry at them. That's what anger's _for_; it mobilizes your resources against an enemy, the good old fight-flight reflex. Nothing wrong with it at all; someone who can't feel and express anger is going to be a victim. A friend of mine once dislocated the thumb of a man who groped her, then broke his elbow and nose. I've always considered that perfectly acceptable -- an act of social hygene, in fact, and I wish it happened more often, to teach imbeciles to respect other people's boundaries. Strong emotions are like fire, though -- a good servants but poor masters. Uncontrolled anger makes you so dangerous that everyone else will get together to put you out of the picture. Uncontrolled love makes you a sucker, just as uncontrolled suspicion makes you a paranoid isolate. Gotta balance your _chi_, as the saying goes. >Anger, being angry at someone, fighting, drawing one's six-shooter...these are 'problem solving' techniques associated with male behavior that is promulgated in so many stories. -- associated with human behavior, actually; as Russ' characters illustrate. They're as innate as breathing, like altruism and self-sacrifice. All part of the human condition. One of the things I liked about "The Female Man" was that the all-female 'utopia' was _not_ some blissed-out huggy-wuggy love-fest, with everyone going around cooing understanding and dripping with empathy in a perpetual bath of lukewarm emotional chicken soup. Given the intial premise, I found Whileaway quite believable; that's one reason it was very good SF. Far superior to most utopian fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:22:27 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 2:23:06 PM Mountain Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: >I find that this option is denigrated as "running away", the option of the coward, so often in our society. I think that is macho bullshit. Sometimes it really is the best choice. Not all the time. Sometimes not even possible. But it's good to be reminded of it. >> -- I'm all for running away, if it works. Only an idiot fights when there's any choice in the matter. However, the problem with running away is that the other side has feet too, and can follow you. Usually it just delays the final confrontation, rather than avoiding it. It all depends on whether, when that time comes, you'll be in a better or worse position than you would if you'd fought the first time. If waiting makes it worse, then running away really _is_ cowardice; avoiding present pain and effort at the cost of worse later. Eg., the British and French "ran away" from the problem of Hitler repeatedly -- until they were forced into a corner and had to fight at his convenience, rather than theirs. Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight back or submit. There is no box marked "other". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:28:59 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 2:23:06 PM Mountain Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: >I don't think her message can be boiled down to anything that simple. >> -- well, I certainly agree with that. It's a complex work. Looking at LeGuin's opus as a whole, I think she's deeply conflicted and ambiguous about political violence; approving of revolution, but disturbed at the means necessary to accomplish it. And, to be blunt, she's not very good at depicting collective political violence -- the emotional dynamics of it, that is, what makes it possible for individual human beings to act that way. This is in quite stark contrast to the usually exquisitely skillful touch she has with character development. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:43:36 -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: BDG: Female Man -- what's your favorite quote? In-Reply-To: <19990203223321017.AAA250.298@jennifer.actioneer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:29 PM 2/3/99 -0800, Jennifer Krauel wrote: >When I was reading it I kept wanting to get the highlighter so I could go >back and find the bits that were just perfect so I could quote them later. >I enjoyed the quote that Susan typed in of her favorite part. What were >your favorite lines? Here are a few: "It is the old who are given the sedentary jobs, the old who can spend their days mapping, drawing, thinking, writing, collating, composing. In the libraries old hands come out from under the induction helmets and give you the reproductions of the books you want; old feet twinkle below the computer shelves, hanging down like Humpty Dumpty's; old ladies chuckle eerily while composing The Blasphemous Cantata (a great favorite of Ysaye's) or mad-moon cityscapes which turn out to be do-able after all; old brains use one part in fifty to run a city (with checkups made by two sulky youngsters) while the other forty-nine parts riot in a freedom they haven't had since adolescence. The young are rather priggish about the old on Whileaway. They don't really approve of them." (p. 53) "Boys don't like smart girls. Boys don't like aggressive girls. Unless they want to sit in the girls' laps, that is. I never met a man yet who wanted to make it with a female Genghis Khan. Either they try to dominate you, which is revolting, or they turn into babies." (p. 67) "There is an unpolished, white, marble statue of God on Rabbit Island, all alone in a field of weeds and snow. She is seated, naked to the waist, an outsized female figure as awful as Zeus, her dead eyes staring into nothing. At first She is majestic; then I notice that Her cheekbones are too broad, Her eyes set at different levels, that Her whole figure is a jumble of badly-matching planes, a mass of inhuman contradictions. There is a distinct resemblance to Dunyasha Bernadetteson, known as the Playful Philosopher (A.C. 344-426), though God is older than Bernadetteson and it's possible that Dunyasha's genetic surgeon modelled her after God instead of the other way round." (p. 103) "Romance is bad for the mind." (p. 153) ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:31:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: <199902060257.UAA89444@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > That wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I _was_ trying to say was > simply that good health at age 80's a great thing to have, sure, but it > isn't going to stop you from dying, which is what the original poster (which > I believe was you) was apparently indicating. No one said that good health would stop anyone from dying -- it would take a lot more than that. however, you made a point that even delaying aging was some kind of crime against humanity, let alone immortality. Once again -- we were talking about immortality in science fiction and whether anyone on the list had any ideas whether it would be a good thing and why. You are apparently scared of living forever -- hell, that's your choice. The choice to _dislike_ the idea, not the choice to live forever -- no one has that choice yet. Just to make this clear before someone went on about "do you think that if you want it, it will happen -- which planet you're from?"again. We are talking about an _idea_ and its presentaiton in science fiction -- you don't have to like it, but it does not mean anyone else should not. > Please be so kind as to not patronise me. I don't agree with a lot of things > you say, but I've never effectively called you "stupid". Well, I'm sure not the one who uses expressions like "Whaaaa?". Why is it that you expect others to respect you more than you do them -- beats me. But it's hardly going to happen. > >By the way, I like the way you conduct your argument :). Just don't > >complain if others do it the same way. I've noticed that the most > >obnoxios people tend to start whining about "manners" whenever they are > >fed their own candy. > > So now I'm one of the "most obnoxious" people on the list, because I conduct > my arguments in conversational rather than academic English? Right. From now > on, I'll see if I can quote a statistic or obscure feminist scholar every > time I get into a debate. Maybe that'll sound more polite. I never quote feminist scholars, either, so you're preaching to the wrong crowd. I'd be the last person here who would argue by saying "if you read the sixth volume of the certain 18th century literary critic, you'd know what I'm talking about". In fact, i think people who have to refer to "authorities" in that way to prove their point do it simply because they have nothing original to say. > Again, don't patronise me. You seem to be veering off the path of reasonable > debate and into the downright insulting. No more insulting than your original statements. Try reading your postings sometimes before you send them, and imagine them directed to _you_, and you might notice where you tend to veer off in the heat of the "reasonable argument". Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:41:44 -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: A new slant on the immortality thing... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" What's so incomprehensible about believing that afterlife is determined by belief during life? She can believe that she'll have an afterlife, and that people who don't believe won't. The two statements you quoted don't HAVE to be mutually contradictory. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: S.M. Stirling [mailto:JoatSimeon@AOL.COM] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 10:32 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] A new slant on the immortality thing... In a message dated 2/5/99 8:04:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: >I know that for me there is an afterlife--it is part of my faith. However, for you, that may not be true. >> -- I too am not interested in a debate on that specific issue, but that statement is a violation of the law of the excluded middle (two mutually contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:38:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: A new slant on the immortality thing... In-Reply-To: <199902060314.VAA62202@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > Strong belief is > fine (apologies for the "religious nut" comment), but you still can't really > claim to know with absolute certainty that there is an afterlife. Nor is there any "concrete proof" of the opposite. So no one can be absolutely certain that there is no afterlife, either. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:46:49 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <5804aa78.36bcc0a3@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:22 PM 2/6/99 EST, S.M. Stirling wrote: >Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight >back or submit. There is no box marked "other". Yes, there is. I think the problem here is the "ultimately". No one can tell the future. If you delay a confrontation with someone today, maybe they will be hit by a bus tomorrow and you will never have to deal with them again. Maybe you will gain enough time to sneak away when they aren't looking (as Luz did in the book) to a place that they may never find. There are many more options than the false binary you propose. There are some situations that do boil down to that binary, but they are so few when compared to the huge number of human interactions that occur every day that it strikes me as very odd how prevalent this "eat or be eaten" mentality is. As an aside, I've often been dismayed at the insistence on binaries / opposites in Western thinking. Once I saw a children's book, called, I think, *Opposites*, which was filled with supposed opposites like dog / cat, man / woman, etc. I was horrified! No wonder we turn out so weird... Of course Le Guin's bible, the Tao Teh Ching, is also filled with binaries, though it's more clear that these are creations of the mind that need to be re-evaluated frequently in order to remain useful. Still, I have never been exactly comfortable the idea of yin / yang or the idea that the female principle is cold and dark, while the male is hot and bright. They are supposed to be intertwined, but it still sounds like separate is not equal... ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:52:21 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <6960e5fa.36bcc22b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:28 PM 2/6/99 EST, S.M. Stirling wrote: >Looking at LeGuin's opus as a whole, I think she's deeply conflicted and >ambiguous about political violence; approving of revolution, but disturbed at >the means necessary to accomplish it. Agreed. >And, to be blunt, she's not very good at depicting collective political >violence -- the emotional dynamics of it, that is, what makes it possible for >individual human beings to act that way. Hm. I always thought her renderings of capitalist and military structures were pretty good, but the individual bad guys were her failing (like Davidson in *The Word for World Is Forest*). Maybe that is what you mean. Can you give some examples? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:46:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty Subject: Re: the female man In-Reply-To: <19990205134526.A7161@hungry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I didn't realize people were having trouble buying the book when I first posted, just bemoaning the fact that the book had no home in my public library system...I don't know about other collections, but in general, SF is not where the $$ go and unless you have a librarian on staff who is a SF fan and can be rather pushy and can insinuate herself in an area of collection development that may "belong" to another librarian, these important books can go missing if they were ever ordered at all. Case in point: McHugh's new book Mission Child has only 1 copy ordered by one library out of 6 for a population of over 300,000. And please don't ask how many copies of the latest Steel book we have; you'd cry. On to amazon....thanks. JB On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Stephany Burge wrote: > Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:27:18PM -0600, Santanico writes... > > Same here. I swear, I can't find the damn thing anywhere. The cornerstone of > > modern feminist literature (or so I've heard), and every bookshop and > > library seems to be mysteriously out of stock. > > I got mine through amazon.com. It only takes about three days to arrive. > > -stephany > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:51:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: BDG: Female Man -- what's your favorite quote? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990206174336.0074603c@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > At 02:29 PM 2/3/99 -0800, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > >When I was reading it I kept wanting to get the highlighter so I could go > >back and find the bits that were just perfect so I could quote them later. > >I enjoyed the quote that Susan typed in of her favorite part. What were > >your favorite lines? > Here is one of mine (besides the many already posted, esp. the lovely one about electricity): "There's no being _out too late_ in Whileaway, or _up too early,_ or _in the wrong part of town_ or _unescorted_. You cannot fall out of the kinship web and become sexual prey for strangers, for there is no prey and there are no strangers - the web is world-wide.... "You can walk around the Whilewayan equator twenty times (if the feat takes your fancy and you live that long) with one hand on your sex in in the other an emerald the size of a grapefruit. All you'll get is a tired wrist. "While here, where _we_ live-!" >From someone who had to wait until she was old enough and the daily harrassment on the streets and in all public places stopped to realize a twenty year dream of hiking for a week alone. Long before that, I knew that for American women, our "heritage" of the National Parks and Forests was ours by permission of males. Women who hiked with men weren't "protected", they simply weren't attacked or threatened. Women who hiked alone or with other women were attacked or threatened. By men. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:46:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Robin's comment / BRAVE DAMES AND WIMPETTES / Lambdas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robin: I like your comment on your strong views on life, the universe and everything, and have experienced similar transitions myself. _____________ Checked out Susan Isaac's BRAVE DAMES... Fairly interesting, but I was a little surprised at how concentrated her commentary seemed. It seemed to me that she based it on films and reading which interested her, and hadn't really attempted to expand into other possible areas when deciding to do the work. I think HANDMAID'S TALE may be the only SF work cited, and almost all romantic relationships discussed were herto. Still, an interesting way to spend an hour in someone else's mind. ******** Congrats to Nicola on her Lambda nomination for BLUE PLACE. Anyone seen the SF nominations yet? Perhaps someone could post 'em to the list? TIA, 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: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:17:18 -0500 Reply-To: Kate.Elliott@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alis Rasmussen Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also have read the Harry Turtledove story about the Nazis in India, and I would suggest that this was another case of the author being on "the side of" the alternate history (a fair critique of any story, I think, although I should mention that I haven't read Murphy's THE CITY, NOT LONG AFTER). I didn't find the Turtledove chilling or particularly realistic. Alis Rasmussen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:08:49 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-06 01:33:01 EST, you write: << I too am not interested in a debate on that specific issue, but that statement is a violation of the law of the excluded middle (two mutually contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true). >> Sure it is. I am not stating what her faith system is; I am leaving it to her faith to determine whether there is an afterlife for her. I am stating my faith system--for me. I may believe that there is an afterlife for her and for all of us, but pushing my faith onto another person would be rude. (Describing my faith and why I have it is not rude when it done appropriately--ie. when asked, or when a discussion about various faiths is occurring.) Therefore, I leave it to her to determine for herself if her faith will allow her to believe in an afterlife. You see, part of my faith rests in the fact that we are all different and come to God, or do not come to God, in different ways. One way is only better in that it is better for that specific person. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:09:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: The City, Not Long After In-Reply-To: <19990206153606.25595.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Pat Murphy's The City, Not Long After is a fine novel. If you've read it, you might want to try two other books, Lisa Goldstein's A Mask for the General and Richard Paul Russo's Subterranean Gallery. The three books, all published between 1987 and 1989, form a quasi-trilogy. All are set in and around San Francisco, all involve visual artists coping with civic unrest and the collapse of the US government. Murphy, Goldstein, and Russo are all friends and kicked ideas around together before writing the novels. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, 36 degrees wrote: > jessie said: > >_The City, Not Long After_ is about a post-apocalyptic (plague, I > >believe) society; it's set in the Bay Area and the main action occurs > >in San Francisco, which is almost uninhabited. The residents use a > >unique form of non-violent resistance to defeat an army. This is a > >vast oversimplification. It's a lovely book, and it's easy to read it > >as a meditation on using one's own tools to bring down the master's > >house. In this case the lesson is double, because to engage the army > >on its own terms is not only hopeless (there are maybe a couple dozen > >resisters), but also self-destructive because the peaceful residents > >of the city would have to become killers. To win under those > >conditions would be to lose what they were fighting for. > > huh. sounds v. like starhawk's _the fifth sacred thing_ (which was also > set in the bay area). is there a spiritual dimension to their > resistance? & do you know when it came out? > > just curious-- > johanna > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:31:42 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 4:03:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight back or submit. There is no box marked "other". >> Right. And we all know that no one will ever travel fast enough to break the speed of sound. Puleez. The only way to cut yourself off from alternatives is to deny they exist. Is this a guy thing? Is it because it justifies the fight or die attitude? Horsehocky. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:45:27 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Re: BDG & Separatism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the concept of separatism is an extremely important one. Russ was responsible for introducing the idea to me, and even though I wouldn't pass muster in the eyes of any true separatist, in my heart of hearts I am. And while I may not count as significant numerically, there are a whole lot of ways to be significant. Numbers don't tell the whole story. Russ was the first one to put into words for me my anger, frustration, and disgust at the attitudes of all the women around me, including my best friends: "Finding The Man. Keeping The Man. Not scaring The Man, building up The Man, pleasing The Man, interesting The Man, following The Man, soothing The Man, changing your judgment for The Man, changing your decisions for The Man, polishing floors for The Man, being perpetually conscious of your appearance for The Man, being romantic for The Man, hinting to The Man, losing yourself in The Man." As a teenager, seeing my friends behave this way enraged me. Pushing 50, it still enrages me. The difference now is that while plenty of my acquaintances still act this way, very few of them are actually friends, by my definition. The notion that it might be possible to live in a world entirely absent of men was a revelation. The notion that you might choose to voluntarily have nothing at all to do with The Man on this earth, in real life, was a shock. For years, my personal living space, even though in the middle of a city, was not open to men. I mean, I simply did not allow them to intrude in the space I called home. I might have to deal with them at work, when shopping in certain kinds of stores, on the freeways, but they did NOT enter my personal space. Coming from the background I did, this felt like sanctuary. More, the very concept that there might someday be a plague allowing us to come into our own was an important part of my wish-list,, my daydreams, for a long time. A close friend of mine, who works with women in their teens and early twenties tells me that they do not understand all the brouhaha, the noise and significance of the fact that there are now women surgeons, astronauts, lawyers etc. Young women today seem to view the opportunities open to them as their right and due, without owing anyone respect for making it so. If they have those options open to them and we didn't, it is simply because they are better people than we were. Yes, you heard me correctly. These young women would never value separatism for the same reasons that I do. Which is not to say that they would not wish for a women-only space. But they wouldn't understand the feeling that such a thing was even necessary for us "to come into our own." Like everything else in life, there are both positive and negative aspects to this. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:18:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Syela Shratdeshm Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Subject: Re: The Female Man vs. "When It Changed" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII At 07:08 PM 2/5/99 EST, Nicola Griffith wrote: >>I don't recall _The Female Man_ in great detail (I read it nearly twenty >>years ago), but I seem to remember thinking, when I read it, that Janet's >>attitude in the novel (self-confidence) was *much* more consistent with >>her history and upbringing than her attitude in the novella (instant >>feelings of inferiority on meeting men for the first time). It would >>be interesting to find out what others think about this. I realized what passage this referenced before checking the hyperlink to verify. I didn't read feelings of inferiority in "the day before, I would have said that was an exact description of me." I was a child prodigy, particularly in maths. When I went to Big Name U. and finally met someone with a similar talent, it was quite a shock to both of us. It wasn't that I felt inferior, merely that I was forced to acknowledge that I was now in a bigger pond with other big fish. That's how I read that passage. "Janice E. Dawley" writes: >It struck me as psychologically false and irritating that the narrator >would be so worried by the men. Janet seems quite contemptuous of the men as individuals. I suspect that if the condescending envoys of the culture with the big guns had been bug-eyed monsters, she would be similarly worried. If I were to sum up Janet's attitude in "When It Changed", I would quote: "I'm afraid that my own achievements will dwindle from what they were--or what I thought they were--to the not-very-interesting curiosa of the human race ... what's around the corner is a duel so big that I don't think I have the guts for it." The Earth-men are not simply men on Whileaway; they are much as the White Man was to Native Americans (and others). Knowing that history, Janet's reaction is understandable. Syela ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:10:29 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6 Feb 99, at 17:28, S.M. Stirling wrote: > And, to be blunt, she's not very good at depicting collective > political violence -- the emotional dynamics of it, that is, what > makes it possible for individual human beings to act that way. This is, I think, a very common failing in sf/f as a whole. The corollary (that collective humanity doesn't always resort to senseless violence in times of trouble) is also frequently ignored. Indeed the problem is much more general than that and ingorance of how people behave in very large groups results in authors inventing manifestly unstable social and economic systems which require one to repeatedly suspend disbelief. Tepper's _The gate to women's country_, McCaffrey's "body-in-a-can" universe and even (to some extent) Cherryh's "Union/Alliance" universe are, I think, fair examples. Le Guin's particular difficulty is that (as you say) while her character development is superb, her knowledge of how people act in groups is both limited and biased. This tends, I think, to rob her books of the timelessness that really great writing has. I can recall how disappointed I was when I first read _The left hand of darkness_ in 1993 - a great work for its time *but* one that hasn't worn well. _Four ways to forgiveness_ has similar flaws that largely restrict its appeal to the converted. But still, all authors have their little blind spots. Some authors have what can only be described as a touchingly childish faith in the efficacy of the MARTIAL ARTS. No prizes for guessing which book I've just finished! AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:12:37 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: BDG The Female Man Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6 Feb 99, at 1:33, Nicola Griffith wrote: > [a short story... which posited an alternate history where > Hitler and his friends were in power in India instead > of the British; they mowed down Ghandi and his followers > without blinking. Interesting piece. If someone who knew > nothing about history read the "real" history and then > read this one, which would they more likely to believe > as realistic? Fiction can be weird, but truth can be weirder. As another alternative, consider "Children of tears" by Adrienne Gormley (in the _Alternate tyrants_ anthology edited by Mike Resnik). The premise on which this story is based is that the "English" decided to hang on to India after '47, and it describes the tyrannical steps that the author thought that *Churchill* would have had take. The story illustrates how easy it is to cross the very thin line democracy and tyranny by practising democracy in one's own country but tyranny in somebody else's. The British Empire at its greatest expansion was, in truth, based on exactly this dichotomy. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:00:38 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Organization: Gemini Walker Ink Subject: Re: immortality again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > This is why I don't think that a "cure to death" would lead to > overpopulation -- some people would want to die anyway. Which they should > be allowed to do, I think. A possibility does not have to be a > requirement. As long as they don't try to prevent others from doing it. > > Marina > I feel this way about people who want to die, too. Made me realize that I probably shouldn't volunteer to work on a suicide hotline! Altho ... perhaps those who call a suicide hotline don't really want to die? Or do you think those that do might actually want some support/assistance around processing their decision? Anyway, I know that whoever is in charge of those things would *never* countenance having a volunteer that would actually support and empower someone who actually wanted to die ... which made me realize that at least what *I* think about suicide hotlines would keep me off them. Anyone else ever think about this? ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 1/12/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:59:19 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <19990207091029.25919.qmail@www08.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:10 AM 2/7/99 MET, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: >Le Guin's particular difficulty is that (as you say) while her character >development is superb, her knowledge of how people act in groups is both >limited and biased. This tends, I think, to rob her books of the timelessness >that really great writing has. I can recall how disappointed I was when I >first read _The left hand of darkness_ in 1993 - a great work for its time >*but* one that hasn't worn well. _Four ways to forgiveness_ has similar flaws >that largely restrict its appeal to the converted. I'm very interested by this discussion of Le Guin. I just wish I had a little more to go on. What about *tLHoD* and *FWtF* did you find dated and/or flawed? My main problem with *tLHoD* is that Le Guin used "he" as the generic pronoun, which twists the entire narrative in ways I don't think she intended. But I have a feeling that isn't what you were talking about... ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:58:06 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 1:16:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: << Le Guin's particular difficulty is that (as you say) while her character development is superb, her knowledge of how people act in groups is both limited and biased. Thi >> Excuse me, but I think the only way this conclusion can be reached is if one has an extremely limited knowledge/experience base with human cultures and human behavior. Until the advent of a new view in anthropology (i.e., the women), behaviors in other cultures were interpreted as they compared to the ideals of European patriarchal upper class privileged males. The pyramids were a great thing: banana leaf homes that harm not the environment and can be abandoned (much more hygienic), are not a great development. Much had been lost of the other cultures: but there are many ways of being, and ways of living that far outstrip the wildest ideas in sf. Would we, in our culture, ever have imagined the possibility of soldiers refusing to fire on crowds of their own people (Russia), or of that young man in China standing alone in front of the tanks (and the tanks stopping)? And...you know, sometimes sf is morality being thought out loud in print. So even if Tepper and Le Guin had a limited understanding of the behavior of people in groups (they do not), their works could be considered on the same level as earlier sf that predicted...flight to the moon. I once read that all great scientific ideas are preceded by their expression in art. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:04:53 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >And...you know, sometimes sf is morality being thought out loud in print. >So even if Tepper and Le Guin had a limited understanding of the behavior >of people in groups (they do not), their works could be considered on the >same level as earlier sf that predicted...flight to the moon. > >Madrone Just curious--which Tepper do you mean? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:21:03 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: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 10:08:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, jocysher@SPRYNET.COM writes: << which Tepper >> Did I misspell? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:36:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, I meant which book by Tepper? -----Original Message----- > ><< which Tepper >> > >Did I misspell? > >Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:08:24 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7 Feb 99, at 12:58, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > Excuse me, but I think the only way this conclusion can be > reached is if one has an extremely limited knowledge/ > experience base with human cultures and human behavior. > Until the advent of a new view in anthropology (i.e., > the women).... My point (as the previous paragraph showed) dealt with*very large* groups (kingdoms for example). I know of no generally accepted study - based on a new paradigm or not - that has studied full *societies* (that is, 100k people or greater) at roughly the same level as, say, the Karhide or other technological societies in _The left hand..._. > Would we, in our culture, ever have imagined the > possibility of soldiers refusing to fire on crowds > of their own people (Russia), or of that young man > in China standing alone in front of the tanks (and the > tanks stopping)? Equivalent things have happened in many cultures over the centuries so none of us should have the least difficulty in imagining it. In fact, 'soldiers refusing to fire etc' happened in almost every revolution I can think of - from the English Civil War through the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848 and the 1905 & 1917 Russian Revolutions to the Hungarian Uprising. In all but a few cases, the action was futile because the regime was either unaffected or replaced by an even worse tyranny. Just as your young man's action on 20 May (?) was futile and followed by the Tiananmen Square massacre on 3-4 June a989. > And...you know, sometimes sf is morality being > thought out loud in print. So even if Tepper and > Le Guin had a limited understanding of the behavior > of people in groups (they do not), their works could > be considered on the same level as earlier sf that > predicted...flight to the moon. I'm not sure what you mean. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:15:48 -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: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: <44d8cf51.36bbe2b9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I wonder if that is a learned behavior? I grew up with very demonstrative parents and physically active siblings. We fought physically alot. Maybe it depends on how straightlaced one grew up. Sensing a stereotype flaring up, Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > In a message dated 2/5/99 8:34:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, > allyshaw@earthlink.net writes: > > >Despite my earlier posts which discussed ambivalence about anger, >> > > -- as an aside, our society does tend to make women ambiguous about expressing > anger (or outright aggression.) > > We ran into this at my dojo -- women would come in and be unable, even in a > practice situation, to hit somebody in any but an extremely symbolic "patting" > manner, tentative and apologetic. > > It usually required several weeks of "reprogramming" to overcome this > conditioned reflex, but when we did, the results were often spectacular. > (Then we had to work on when it was appropriate to hit and when to stop, short > of jumping up and down on a pile of splintered bone and gray goo... 8-).) > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:13:09 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Carol Ann Kerry-Green Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man In-Reply-To: <47afa275.36bbc25d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Madrone asked. > > << "The City, Not Long After" by Pat Murphy? >> > > This is a new one to me. Anybody know what it was about? Having just finished reading this, it's still fairly clear in my head. It's set in San Francisco after a Plague that killed roughly 90% of the population. San Francisco is populated by a colony of artists, who practise their art wherever in the city they like. One of the main protagonists, Danny-boy has taken on the task of painting the Golden Gate Bridge all different shades of blue. The unnamed woman comes to the city bringing a warning, Fourstar (a jumped up general) is leading an army to take over San Francisco by leading his followers to believe they're hoarding vast amounts of resources - he's already taken over Fresno and a couple of other places. The novel is about the war that ensues and how the artists fight back - they knock the soldiers unconcsious by blow darts and paint DEAD on their foreheads then sign it - psychological warfare. It's a fascinating book, the city has it's own way of fighting as well. When I read Starhawk's _The Fifth Sacred Thing_ last year, it put me in mind of _The City not Long After_ Carol Ann Hull, E Yorks, UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:12:47 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Robin's comment / BRAVE DAMES AND WIMPETTES / Lambdas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit < Congrats to Nicola on her Lambda nomination for BLUE PLACE. Thanks, Maryelizabeth. < Anyone seen the SF nominations yet? Perhaps < someone could post 'em to the list? The sf/f lambda nominees are: _Bending the Landscape: SF_ ed. Nicola Griffith and Stephen Pagel (Overlook) _Desmond_ Ulysses Dietz (Alyson) _Falling to Earth_ Elizabeth Brownrigg (Firebrand) _Galilee_ Clive Barker (HarperCollins) _Things Invisible to See_ Lawrence Schimel (Cirlet/Ultra Violet) Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:20:34 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: The Female Man vs. "When It Changed" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 3:00:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, PPAQEBB@GROVE.IUP.EDU writes: > I didn't read feelings of inferiority in > "the day before, I would have said that was an exact description > of me." I was a child prodigy, particularly in maths. When I > went to Big Name U. and finally met someone with a similar talent, > it was quite a shock to both of us. It wasn't that I felt inferior, > merely that I was forced to acknowledge that I was now in a bigger > pond with other big fish. That's how I read that passage. Interesting. Thanks for this; it's not something I had considered. I'll have to go away and think about it. Do you have an interpretation of the "second class citizen" part of the passage? Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:23:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <5804aa78.36bcc0a3@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: (snip) > Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight > back or submit. There is no box marked "other". Actually, I can think of at least one other "box" and it says talk it over. I know of women who have managed to talk their assailants out of raping them. On the news a few months ago I saw a story about a woman who not only talked her way out of being raped but managed to talk the guy into turning himself into the police. Sometimes talking things over work better than either one of the choices you listed. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:28:34 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 12:13:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: << 100k people or greater) >> I think it depends on where you look. As an example, there are lots of studies on how people in capitalistic organizations behave (starting, long ago, with The Organization Man) and this would easily cover 100K or so. Also, studies on gender behavior in groups such as Polynesians, Americans, etc. Not to mention studies on how humans of different ages learn and behave. There are so many people on the planet now, that some businesses actually dwarf the old kingdoms...Studies of large groups now outshadow the studies of small, probably no longer extant, native peoples. Just as your young man's action on 20 May (?) was futile Well....but aren't all acts not studied and acted upon futile? And what lies behind that futility (although I am not quite sure I'm ready to categorize that wondrous vision of one man stopping tanks as futile)? Is it the Devil? Ignorance? Exhaustion? Lack of hope? Fear of displeasing the Man? I still think Le Quin and Tepper have a very good idea of human behavior and are doing the equivalent of throwing life rings out to us. So that when we have to face human behaviors that are destructive, we won't have an empty box of things to try. > Their works could be considered on the same level as earlier sf that > predicted...flight to the moon. I mean...they are predicting that people will actually try to solve the problems of violence and wasted life. We certainly aren't doing any such thing right now. What if they are right? What if the day finally comes when the she-bears will take a stand? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 17:41:57 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-06 19:03:29 EST, you write: << Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight back or submit. There is no box marked "other". >> I think this kind of thinking contributes to women in abusive situations finding it difficult to near impossible to leave their abusers--"I either have to fight back or submit, if I fight back he's going to kill so I guess I'll have to submit" . HELLO???? Get the hell out! If someone is hurting you you don't always have to stay and get your butt kicked! Flight is an option--that's one of the reasons it's called "fight or flight"--not "fight or submit" . ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:20:55 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Organization: Gemini Walker Ink Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, S.M. Stirling wrote: > > (snip) > > Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either fight > > back or submit. There is no box marked "other". > > Actually, I can think of at least one other "box" and it says talk it > over. I know of women who have managed to talk their assailants out of > raping them. On the news a few months ago I saw a story about a woman who > not only talked her way out of being raped but managed to talk the guy > into turning himself into the police. Sometimes talking things over work > better than either one of the choices you listed. > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > > One of the most important things we can learn how to do is to "think outside the box." It is the "either/or" thinking that is so damn oppositional and patriarchal! ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 1/12/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:20:55 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Organization: Gemini Walker Ink Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > In a message dated 99-02-06 19:03:29 EST, you write: > > << Ultimately, if someone's going to use force on you, you have to either > fight > back or submit. There is no box marked "other". > >> > I think this kind of thinking contributes to women in abusive situations > finding it difficult to near impossible to leave their abusers--"I either have > to fight back or submit, if I fight back he's going to kill so I guess I'll > have to submit" . HELLO???? Get the hell out! If someone is hurting you you > don't always have to stay and get your butt kicked! Flight is an > option--that's one of the reasons it's called "fight or flight"--not "fight or > submit" . > > Of course, you could *leave* and get your butt kicked ... most women are, after all, at the highest risk of being murdered *when they are leaving* ... ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 1/12/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:28:50 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 6:36:47 PM Mountain Standard Time, sandy.candioglos@INTEL.COM writes: << What's so incomprehensible about believing that afterlife is determined by belief during life? She can believe that she'll have an afterlife, and that people who don't believe won't. The two statements you quoted don't HAVE to be mutually contradictory. >> -- well, I was giving the speaker credit for not being quite that subjectivist... 8-). Or, more seriously, framing the question in the usual manner: either we have an immortal 'soul', or we don't. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:44:48 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 6:46:00 PM Mountain Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: >Yes, there is. I think the problem here is the "ultimately". No one can tell the future. -- true, but we all have to try... 8-). Otherwise, we can't live, since that generally requires a certain degree of planning ahead. Eg., knowing that there's a reasonable likelihood of being around to harvest what you plant. >If you delay a confrontation with someone today, maybe they will be hit by a bus tomorrow and you will never have to deal with them again. -- hmmm, I was thinking in political terms -- collective confrontations. Although your example is extremely modern and urban; most people throughout history have lived in small communities where moving was not very practical, unless you were going to give up the fields that fed you and your family. >Maybe you will gain enough time to sneak away when they aren't looking (as Luz did in the book) to a place that they may never find. -- well, perpetually uprooting yourself whenever someone shakes a club at you could be construed under the category 'submission'. Sort of takes a lot of the fun out of life, too, when someone else can dictate your movements and put you in fear whenever they like. >it strikes me as very odd how prevalent this "eat or be eaten" mentality is. Hmmm, let's put it this way. I'm mostly Scottish and English by descent, with a dash of Beothuk. (The Beothuk were the pre-Columbian inhabitants of Newfoundland, where my family on my father's side have lived for the past 300 years or so.) The Beothuk weren't particularly warlike; their general response to attack or confrontation was to withdraw. The last speaker of Beothuk died in captivity died in 1823; my British-Newfie ancestors and their Micmac allies hunted them down like animals. The world just isn't a very big place, if you've got a determined enemy. Of course, they'd probably have been wiped out if they'd fought back, too. Sometimes there are no good options. >As an aside, I've often been dismayed at the insistence on binaries/opposites in Western thinking. -- it's scarcely a Western monopoly; ying/yang is a classic example, as you point out. It would be more accurate, I think, to take analytical reductionism as something Western thought emphasizes more than most other traditions. >They are supposed to be intertwined, but it still sounds like separate is not equal... -- well, sexual equality is like representative democracy -- a Very Good Thing that's also largely a phenomenon of the last couple of centuries. NB: your point is a good one, though, and a reason I've always been deeply suspicious of "seperate but equal" theories and of essentialism generally. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:33:38 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/6/99 7:22:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: >Hm. I always thought her renderings of capitalist and military structures were pretty good -- well, no. Leaving aside the capitalist part, for the present, she fails to distinguish between the reasons why _leaders decide_ to have wars, and the emotional dynamics of why soldiers actually _fight_ out at the sharp end. The two are extremely different. As a thought experiment, take someone -- say my grandfather -- in a trench on the Western Front in 1917. Imagine you're him: You're a couple of months over eighteen, and you're standing in a trench, with thin mud up to your knees. Your hair is full of itching scabs from lice, and you've got them crawling like maggots in every seam of your uniform. You haven't had your boots off for over a week, and you're afraid to take them off now, because of the numbness and the smell. That's hard to distinguish, though, because bits of rotting human being saturate the water and the soil all around you. You haven't eaten much in a while, because the supplies are screwed up, but you've got the low-grade runs most of the time, anyway -- you haven't felt anything but wretched since your third day in the line. There's an artillery barrage going overhead like endless freight-trains, landing on the enemy trenches in a continuous thunder It makes you tremble uncontrollably, because you can remember crouching in the dark in a bombproof with the earth shaking all around you, trying not to start shrieking as you wait for the direct hit that will bury you alive to suffocate, or for a poison-gas shell to fill the stinking crowded space with chlorine and burn your lungs out and scald your eyes. Yesterday a _minnewerfer_ round blew your best friend to pieces right beside you, and you got half his brains thrown in a warm wet fid right in your face. You keep trying to forget the taste, because it still makes you vomit; and you also try to forget that shameful momentary hot rush of relief that it wasn't _you_. But it _could_ be you, any second, any moment, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it except pray not to be in the wrong place at the wrong instant. You'd think nothing on earth could live under the hammer of the guns, but you know that when the barrage lifts, the men on the other side will dig themselves out of their bunkers and go scrambling up to the parapet with their Maxim guns and Mausers, desperately fast, because _they_ know that they have to knock the attack back or they'll all die when they're overrun. The trench is crowded because there's a 'push' on. Out in front are the bodies of an enemy patrol, hanging on the wire where your Vickers gun caught them two nights ago. You could hear them sobbing for days and nights, begging for water, or calling out for their mothers, when they were further gone. The Lieutenant (who's all of six months older than you are) is standing on one of the ladders, looking at his wristwatch and holding a whistle in his mouth and a flare-gun in his hand. In a few minutes he's going to blow the whistle, fire the flare, then turn and shout: "All right, lads -- follow me." And you're going to pick up your rifle, climb the ladder and follow him over the top, into the machine-guns and the wire and the gas, knowing _exactly_ what will probably happen to you. Why? Certainly not for fear of the redcaps and the glasshouse. After all, what could the authorities do to you that's worse than _this_? Shoot you? That's going to happen anyway, with virtual mathematical certainty, and probably in a form far more lingering and agonizing than a firing squad. Any prison in the world would be heaven besides this. What will send you forward isn't hate or greed; it's love and altruism and self-sacrifice and pride; it's _bruderschaft_. These people on either side, they're the only family and friends you have -- the only people who've been here with you in this antechamber of Hell, the only ones you can talk to and know you're understood. They're the best friends you'll ever have, because you know that they will, absolutely and literally, die for you; and you'd rather die than let them down, or make them think you'd failed them. It's this feeling of community that armies try to inculcate -- it's the reason behind all the ritual and close-order drill and flags. When armies lose it, they disintegrate; when it turns against the leadership, you get mutinies. Without it, war would be virtually impossible. That isn't the whole story, but it's a very important part of it, and LeGuin misses it completely. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:49:20 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: The City, Not Long After Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 12:04:30 AM Mountain Standard Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: << Pat Murphy's The City, Not Long After is a fine novel. If you've read it, you might want to try two other books, Lisa Goldstein's A Mask for the General and Richard Paul Russo's Subterranean Gallery. >> -- ah, thanks for bringing up the Russo book. I hadn't heard of it, but certainly enjoyed the other two. Amazon.com gets more of my hard-earned royalties... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:51:18 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: A new slant on the immortality thing... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 5:30:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Or, more seriously, framing the question in the usual manner: either we have an immortal 'soul', or we don't. >> Again, either/or with no gradations. No other possibilities. I think there is a certain hubris in assuming we know enough to be able to label all possible forms of existence. Science certainly doesn't speak like this. At most, one will say the probability of something is quite low (given current understanding). Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:55:33 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 1:40:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >The only way to cut yourself off from alternatives is to deny they exist. Is this a guy thing? Is it because it justifies the fight or die attitude? -- well, actually, it's based on a study of history. If you've got evidence to the contrary, I'm always ready to listen. >> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:55:58 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 10:42:59 PM, TMBouwman wrote: <> There's a curious difference between humans and other predatory species. When wolves, for instance, fight, submission stops it. True of most mammals. With, of course, some special circumstances of territory to the death. But such instances are extremely rare in non-human mammals. Somebody gives in. And then and then -- the aggressor backs off. There is rape amongst non-humans, but it is exceedingly rare or a sexual behavior of some species... This is, of course, an artifact of "seasons" in most species. Humans don't have "seasons," we are interested in making love anytime. My point here is that other species seemed to have found a different way to Be that leads to different solutions. And the rules amongst non-humans apply to the aggressor. Something to dream about... lightly, lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:01:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dawley said: >>Hm. I always thought her renderings of capitalist and military structures were pretty good>> Stirling said <-- well, no. Leaving aside the capitalist part, for the present, she fails to distinguish between the reasons why........That isn't the whole story, but it's a very important part of it, and LeGuin misses it completely.> First, any reader is entitled to his/her _opinion_ on a writers portrayals of anything. Saying "well, no" is dismissive and plain arrogant. Secondly, if a writer does not focus on the areas/issues _you_ focus on and/or detail them the way _you_ detail them then they are failing at something? Again, ridiculous. You stated the counter argument that makes the explique of "the horrible life of the trench solider" (who just may be your father) useless. _Your_ story is _not_ the _whole_ story nor is it the _only_ story to be told about "capitalist/military structures" or any issue. I am beginning to think this a mole operation. donna ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:03:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DMadrone: >The only way to cut yourself off from alternatives is to deny they exist. Is this a guy thing? Is it because it justifies the fight or die attitude? Stirling: -- well, actually, it's based on a study of history. If you've got evidence to the contrary, I'm always ready to listen. A study of history? That sounds like a guy thing to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:07:03 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: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 6:34:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << That isn't the whole story, but it's a very important part of it, and LeGuin misses it completely. >> Actually, if you investigate some of the research into brain function under stress you will find that certain kinds of stress (like trench warfare) leave the person as dysfunctional as, say, a temperature of 105 or a drop in body temperature to, say, 95. Those boys who got up out of the trenches and walked straight into machine gun fire were not functional. But that aside, suppose you were my grandmother (since we are talking about ancestors). You have learned math from the nuns, and now run a small store. The owners like you, and are going to retire and let you have the store. BUT...you have two sons and you are living in Italy, where conscription has been enforced for generations. You belong to a tight knit community of friends and relatives. Do you stay there, and do the community thing, and let your sons be taken away...and killed in some war like the one your grandfather was in? (Where were his parents, to let him go? ) Nope. You pick up, gather your sons, leave behind a shining future and go away to a country where the language is strange and newcomers ridiculed...but there is no military draft. Your description of your grandfather is arresting but, trust me, my grandmother suffered as much and longer from loneliness, poverty, fear, and the oppression of english-speaking people who had migrated to this country a little sooner. Then you raise your family to appreciate representative government and encourage them to be independent problem solvers, to get as much education as they can, to never give up the dream. And you teach them...NEVER give yourself over to the oppressors. It can work Le Quin doesn't miss a thing. She is like my grandmother in a strange land, and gives the opportunity to experience a different life and to approach life in a new and adventurous way, no matter how personally challenging, in order to arrive at a new country for one's life and the lives of the children. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:15:52 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 2:16:01 AM Mountain Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: >Le Guin's particular difficulty is that (as you say) while her character development is superb, her knowledge of how people act in groups is both limited and biased. -- yeah, and it's a pity, because it's a blemish on a very, very able writer's work. I would give several non-essential organs to be able to do prose that well. But she's not very good at certain types of human beings. The Condors in "Always Coming Home", for instance, are utter cartoons. Oh, well, nobody's perfect. Elizabeth Lynn does that sort of thing much better, though; and she's about as subtle as LeGuin. A great pity her career got pushed off the rails by that block. >martial arts -- well, I've had a fair bit of practical experience, there... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:35:13 -0500 Reply-To: Lilith Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ooookay.... For one thing, I thought the book we were discussing was "the Female Man" - which I still haven't read, so I haven't posted much on it... But I _have_ read Le Guin extensively, so I guess I can discuss _her_ books - sorry if this is a tad OT. But I really could not resist replying to the latest of Mr. Stirling's oh so many posts. At least this last one contained more than one or two sentences containing meant-to-be-pithy prounouncements.... However - >>Hm. I always thought her renderings of capitalist and military structures >were pretty good > >-- well, no. Leaving aside the capitalist part, for the present, she fails >to distinguish between the reasons why _leaders decide_ to have wars, and >the emotional dynamics of why soldiers actually _fight_ out at the sharp >end. The two are extremely different. Okay, first of all - what novel of LeGuin's has ever been principally about war and the dynamics thereof? Sure, some of them _contained_ war scenes (most commonly the scenes of civilians fleeing or hiding from guns or bombs, not too much of battle and "dynamics") etc., but all of her novels have been principally been character-driven, sure there were "ideas" - but she tends to write about characters who are pacifist or otherwise uninterested or incomprehending of war. I believe she has occasionally had stories with figures of conventional "heroes" in them - but observed from a third person, from a distance - she has never pretended to be Herman Wouk or whoever. (I don't read many war stories so that is the only author that comes to mind, sorry). > >As a thought experiment, take someone -- say my grandfather -- in a >trench on the Western Front in 1917. Imagine you're him: Yeah, imagine you're _my_ grandfather, a member of the cavalry in WW1 (or the Great War as they call it across the pond!) - or my dad, in Korea digging ditches (Army Corps of Engineers) drinking booze and visiting the whorehouses of Tokyo when on leave (he loved M*A*S*H)... there's more than one type of war experience after all... > >You're a couple of months over eighteen, and you're standing in a trench, >with thin mud up to your knees. I snipped all the stuff about scabs and lice and mud - shades of "these girls had it soft all their lives - they don't know anything about waht MEN went through in war!" in all the icky details, eh, S.M.? I avoid the inevitable pun on your initials. >And you're going to pick up your rifle, climb the ladder and follow him >over the top, into the machine-guns and the wire and the gas, knowing >_exactly_ what will probably happen to you. How can you know "exactly probably"? Whatever. Ungracious nitpicking on _my_ part. >That isn't the whole story, but it's a very important part of it, and >LeGuin misses it completely. > I repeat - that is all very well and fine if what you are writing about is a World War 1 battallion in the trenches, but when you are writing about imaginary worlds and cultures meant to _not_ be anything like Western Europe in 1914-18, what does that spiel about headlice, mud, and _bruderschaft_ have to do with the price of tea in China? Lilith ********************************************* ************Hell's Half Acre*************** * http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia * ********************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:38:16 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: BDG The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 1:17:16 PM Mountain Standard Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: >I wonder if that is a learned behavior? I grew up with very demonstrative parents and physically active siblings. We fought physically alot. Maybe it depends on how straightlaced one grew up. >> -- oh, it's undoubtedly a learned behavior. Not universal, just very widespread. Some women who came into the dojo had no problem with hitting people; but a good many did. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:44:05 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 3:42:59 PM Mountain Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: >I think this kind of thinking contributes to women in abusive situations, finding it difficult to near impossible to leave their abusers--"I either have to fight back or submit, if I fight back he's going to kill so I guess I'll have to submit" >> -- the original question related more to intergroup dynamics rather than individual ones. However, when involved with family-law situations, I saw how often women who left abusers were stalked and attacked, and how useless were the 'restraining orders' I was serving. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:54:20 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 6:57:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << Well, actually, it's based on a study of history. >> But don't your see, you are studying history written by people who believe there are no alternatives. Perhaps even by religious and cultural beliefs that support kill or be killed dichotomies. This slips over into the study of biology, in which some people write it as eat or be eaten, which totally misses such critical non-eatum interactions as blue-green algae, nitrogen fixing bacteria, fungi-redvole-trees and many, many others. Holding to the kill or be killed philosophy closes off all alternatives as surely as the old idea that women can't learn Latin and still have babies closed off possibilities of human success. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:10:13 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >In a message dated 2/7/99 8:04:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: >Secondly, if a writer does not focus on the areas/issues _you_ focus on and/or detail them the way _you_ detail them then they are failing at something? -- well, actually, I had the way Elizabeth Lynn or Lois Bujold deals with the same aspects in mind by way of contrast to LeGuin's; they're more realistic on this particular aspect of human behavior, IMHO. Nobody's perfect, or equally good at everything. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "literary criticism", would it? LeGuin is, as I said repeatedly, a very fine stylist; she just has limitations, like all the rest of us. >You stated the counter argument that makes the explique of "the horrible life of the trench solider" (who just may be your father) -- grandfather, in fact. Gassed at 2nd Ypres. It's an exercise in imaginative empathy and projection... sort of germaine to fiction, don't you think? > _Your_ story is _not_ the _whole_ story -- did I say it was? In fact, I recall saying it "wasn't the whole story" explicitly. >I am beginning to think this a mole operation. -- all I was doing was discussing literary technique and themes. Why do you feel obliged to engage in a personal attack after a very superficial reading of the post? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:13:10 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 8:08:12 PM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >Le Quin doesn't miss a thing.> -- I'm a little puzzled. We're not talking about the morality of warfare in this thread; we're talking about the _psychology_ of it. Why people do what they do. LeGuin persistently _tries_ to describe characters who are in certain situations (soldiers, for instance). I was merely pointing out that she has trouble doing so realistically; as opposed to her extremely fine hand at many other types of situation/character. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:25:28 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 8:14:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << - I'm a little puzzled. We're not talking about the morality of warfare in this thread; we're talking about the _psychology_ of it. Why people do what they do. LeGuin persistently _tries_ to describe characters who are in certain situations (soldiers, for instance). I was merely pointing out that she has trouble doing so realistically; as opposed to her extremely fine hand at many other types of situation/character. >> I'm puzzled that you missed the fact that I too am discussion the causes of why people do what they do. I am beginning to think that the reason you feel Le Guin does not describe people realistically is that you have a rather limited horizon when it comes to human behavior, and if it is described from wider perspectives, or better science, or more inclusive experience...or with a different eye to future possibilities...you tend to dismiss it as 'unrealistic'. May I ask, why do you separate out the morality of war from the reasons people engage in it? Are you considering psychology to cover morality, emotional reasons, spiritual reasons, biological factors, and enculturation? And whose psychology do you espouse? Jung? Freud? Horney? Just curious. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:46:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: The Hand of Lightness (was Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron*) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > A study of history? That sounds like a guy thing to me. Is it just me, or does this seem to be just as dismissive as you have recently claimed that Stirling is? [ The rest of this message is not in response to Donna or any one person. Please do not take it as such. ] I liked Laura Q.'s suggestion that we try to PRACTICE feminism on this list. I've heard people hold forth on how the current (male) structures are broken, antiquated, unfair, etc., and how they need to be replaced, but I have seen the same people exhibiting the same male behaviors that they claim to despise--sometimes in the same message. These behaviors are ingrained and hard to break. I want to, as Laura suggested, practice feminism on this list without excluding anyone--regardless of age, height, weight, ethnic "origin", socio-economic class, intelligence, academic affiliation, or whatever classification you want to choose--or their ideas. To me, non-exclusion is a fundamental part of feminism. Another fundamental part of feminism, to me, is a way of dealing with conflict that is not an attack. As Madrone has pointed out, there are other ways of dealing with conflict than outright fighting or outright fleeing. As others have pointed out, fighting does not need to take the form of physical violence--it can take the form of a dialogue (I loved the anecdote about a woman talking her attacker into turning himself in). Similarly, fleeing does not need to take the form of physically running away. A step toward a more feminist practice on this list might be for us all to think twice before posting to the list. Remember that the readers of your message are people. With opinions, convictions, doubts, fears, feelings, compassion, experience, ideas, and everything else that is human. If you are responding to what someone else has written, try to understand their point of view. Empathy is something that is very difficult to achieve in this medium. I have seen FAR more vicious behavior in email and usenet news than I've ever seen in interpersonal relationships "in the flesh". This world is real and the people you are dealing with are real. I would love to hear what other people think about this. I really don't know if the above works for anyone else, or makes sense to anyone else. I was going to suggest that a kind of bill of rights and responsibilities might be a good idea (perhaps modelled on the United Nations statement that Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in drafting), but my wife thought that would smack too much of the patriarchal. Pax, -allen "...'round and 'round and 'round in the circle game..." PS. As an exercise, ask yourself how you would have responded to this post if I'd been female (or under a female name). Regardless of how you did respond. -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com Try free *nix: http://www.netbsd.org/, http://www.freebsd.org/, http://www.linux.org/, http://www.openbsd.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:26:26 -0500 Reply-To: Lilith Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Comments: To: JoatSimeon@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: JoatSimeon@aol.com To: ligeia@concentric.net Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* >In a message dated 2/7/99 8:37:04 PM Mountain Standard Time, >ligeia@concentric.net writes: > >>Sure, some of them _contained_ war scenes > >-- that's what I was referring to. The Condor scenes in "Always Coming >Home", for instance. Some in "The Dispossesed", etc. Nobody does >everything equally well; this is one of LeGuin's weak points, but she >persists in trying to deal with it. Even increasingly so, as in "Four >Paths to Forgiveness". > "Always Coming Home" - or more specifically, the novel within the collection of short stories and poems and essays centered on the imaginary future culture of the Kesh was, if you will recall, told from the viewpoint of someone from outside the culture of the Condor people, to whom their patriarchal, war-focussed culture was too alien to be fully understood, with the overarching idea that the Condor culture was an anachronistic holdover from the past that was "our" civilization - which is seen as a kind of mistake: a "linear-thinking", "progress"-obsessed, earth-damaging sort of out-thrust from the normal life of the world and all the creatures on it. The Condor culture was "cartoonish" because the idea is that people who limit their lives in that manner (specific roles for men and women, conquest and warfare the only way to deal with the rest of humanity) are not living fully human lives. >>all of her novels have been principally been character-driven > >-- well, that's exactly what this thread was discussing. Character, >emotional dynamics, motiviations, etc. Well, I'll believe _you_ are talking about "characters" that LeGuin has written about when you actually mention a character, instead of complaining about the way she handles battle scenes in her stories. > >>I snipped all the stuff about scabs and lice and mud - shades of "these >girls had it soft all their lives - they don't know anything about waht >MEN went through in war!" in all the icky details, eh, S.M.? > >-- since I've never experienced trench warfare either, the "they've had it >soft" would have to apply to me too, eh? Well, if you've never had an experience of this sort, then what is your problem with another way of looking at it? How do you know more than she? For instance, where do you get this _bruderschaft_ stuff? It may be quite as likely that the soldiers fought (some of them anyway) because they said they would and they weren't the sort who changed their minds, because the fear of getting shot for desertion was very real, because they needed some sort of action after squatting in a trench all day, because they were filled with a desire to shoot the other side full of bullets, or to win a commendation, or for any number of reasons. > >What's fiction about, if not identifying with people in _different_ >situations, and who are _different_ from oneself? Pretty boring to read >about people who are just like you all the time... particularly in SF. > >'tisn't a matter of gender. Plenty of female authors do it very well -- >Renault, for instance, or Bujold. I didn't write that one above by the way. But I agree with whoever wrote it. I believe the authors you site have a different way of seeing and describing things than LeGuin, but I don't think that their handling of warfare and characters are any "better" or more true than LeGuins - you just prefer their way of writing. > >>snipped more stuff about the wonderful patriotic togetherness of armies> > >-- didn't I make it clear that this is an age-old con game by which old, >rich men get young, poor dumb ones to die for them? (Or, these days, old, >rich women getting young, poor, dumb ones to do likewise.) > No, not really. All that came from your post was that when writing about war scenes (you seem to believe) that they should be emotional paeans to brotherhood-in-arms containing many gruesome details of physical misery. >And I said it had nothing to do with grand political ideologies like >'patriotism'. > It has a great deal to do with the sort of tribalistic mentality that patriotism is a variation upon. Not that I am saying that the soldierly bond is a myth, but that to say that all war scenes should have characters who feel the same way about their situation is as limiting as, well, the Condor-people's way of viewing the world. >>when you are writing about imaginary worlds and cultures meant to _not_ be >anything like Western Europe in 1914-18, what does that spiel about >headlice, mud, and _bruderschaft_ have to do with the price of tea in >China? > >-- sigh. All generalaties proceed from the particular. There's a >generalized similarity to some situations, whether Flanders in 1914 or >Annares in Century X.; it's part of the human predicament. > And the "human predicament" is a great deal more varied than you are making it out to be. Just because some situations _seem_ similar does not mean that they are. Or that they should be written that way. >LeGuin often talks about war and revolution, and I was using a _particular_ >example to illustrate the _general_ nature of such situations and how it >impacts on _character and motivation_ in fiction. > I think I am going to start a campaign against the use of "imapcts" as a verb. I don't know why; it just irritates me. Lilith ********************************************* ************Hell's Half Acre*************** * http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia * *********************************************