Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9902B" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:46:58 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: 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 8:28:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: << puzzled >> I need to get out of this discussion, because I feel in many ways it is futile. And I thought that the 'history sounds like a guy thing' comment was humorous. We could use a little feminist humor, like Russ'. But...I treasure this space, as I treasure the woman-space I have created in my life. I think of it as a space where diversity is welcome (though every version is stoutly defended by each heart), and where we can disagree spiritedly and with a sense of building a new kind of community: truly a village of humanity, a new Philadelphia. A place of broad and expanding horizons. But...and I mean no offense here...lately the posts have had the same kill or die, ugly and inevitable human nature, whose-on-top sort of discourse that I found in man-space. There is a difference in tone and outlook in man-space that can be destructive of what we are attempting. I think Sirling (or is it Stirling?) and some of the other posters are interesting, but I also honestly feel they are dragging us back out of the space of exploitive feminism/feminist fiction and into that exhaustive place where one constantly must defend (not argue or invent, but outright defend) the vital ideas of feminism. I say, welcome to anyone here, anyone who wants to understand and build the new community. But...One ought not to try to build skyscrapers without having some fair idea of mathematics, and constructive entry into this space requires some idea of the broader perspectives of experience and hope that dwell here. There is a point at which we should no longer have to hold the Man's hand, or delicately make our point while assiduously avoiding any damage to his fragile ego. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:49:19 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: Spell check burp Akkkk! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/99 6:59:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, Zozie@AOL.COM writes: Sorry. That was explorative feminist, not exploitive. Bad spell checker, go sit in the corner!!!!! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:15:19 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 9:28:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >I'm puzzled that you missed the fact that I too am discussion the causes of why people do what they do. -- well, we were discussing the depiction of a particular _type_ of character (soldiers, in this instance) and you started discussing another class of them (emigrant Italian mothers, wasn't it?) Either might come up in a book, of course, with equal validity. >you feel Le Guin does not describe people realistically -- no, no, no, no! If you're going to reply to what I say, please reply to what I _actually_ say. I specifically stated that LeGuin is usually _very good_ at character depiction. I said that she doesn't do _certain types_ of character very realistically. I'm not attacking LeGuin, I'm trying to _analyze_ why certain aspects of her work aren't as deft as the rest. >May I ask, why do you separate out the morality of war from the reasons people engage in it? -- because, for writing purposes, the two are not the same. If you're going to write from the p.o.v. of a 67-year-old politician deciding to declare war, it's a different kettle of fish from getting inside the skull of the the 18-year-old with a rifle, or from your hypothetical Italian mother, for that matter. This is a _technical_, literary matter we're talking about here. A novel is not a pamphlet. To write a character, you have to be able to project yourself not only into their situation, but into their _view_ of the situation. How they feel about it, how it affects them, why they do what they do. That isn't the same as liking the character or agreeing with them or thinking a person of that type would be a good person. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:41:06 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 16:28, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > I think it depends on where you look [for research on very large > groups]. 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. Here you step into my own field and I'm afraid you're wrong. The organisation man _ was a good example of what's available as _The Peter principle_ and the Parkinson's Law books would have been - popular books with only a veneer of plausibility. The academic work is not a whit better. But in fact the point is moot, because the behaviour of people in very large groups is more the province of economics than anthropology. Economics tells us the constraints under which very large groups must work and it also tells us the minimum infrastructure - industrial AND cultural - that high-technology very large groups require. It is here that Le Guin and Tepper fail. Take electricity for example: in order to produce electricity on a large scale, there's got to be a mining industry, a metallurgical industry, a chemical industry and a machine tool industry before we even start to making generators and distribution equipment. Once the equipment has been made, a generating/distribution infrastructure has to be set up. Finally a consumer network to use electricity is essential - why set up an industry whose product no one can use - and this requires appliance industries which in turn require a host of subsidiary industries. And that just for one of the many necessities of technological life - many perhaps all of which are interdependent. As importantly, there also has to be a minimum proportion of people with a technological mindset - the right type of culture. And it has to happen all at once. A civilisation can't take 50 years to set up a mining industry, the next 50 to set up a metallurgical industry and so on. Nor can one start on a very small scale and build up slowly - one has to start on a very small scale *in many places* and build up quickly. The Industrial Revolution happened the way it did, because it could *NOT* have happened gradually. That's where Le Guin fails to understand technological civilisation. On about page 100 or so of _The left hand..._ (I don't have the book handy) she gives a brief description of how technology arose on Winter over 4000 years, and in one paragraph says something like "after 30 centuries Winter hasn't got what Earth had after 30 decades". Because of the interdependence of industries it simply couldn't happen that way. Efficiency demands economies of scale and efficiency isn't just desirable in a technological civilisation - it's absolutely essential. Le Guin and Tepper in _The gate to women's country_ remind me in many ways of Thoreau (I'm thinking of _Walden_) in that they have invented *technological* Utopias (although their civilisations are far from Utopian in other ways). To do this, they assume a degree of group altruism concerning technology which is very much at odds with the rest of their civilisation. Considering _The gate to women's country_: Tepper in combines civilisations to include an analogue of the janissary system of 15-16C Turkey. She fails to explain how such a monstrous non-productive, resource-gobbling system tying up close to half the population could be supported by her very primitive economies. Further she hasn't learned the lessons of history: janissaries (like the Turkish ones or Hitler's Waffen-SS) make good elite, shock troops as part of armies where they can be kept under strict military control - the strongest of economic and/or socio-psychological controls aren't good enough. If military control lapses even briefly as the Mamelukes of Egypt, the Roman Praetorian Guard and the numerous military dictators of this century show us, the military servants rapidly become the masters so the women in _TGTWC_ would have had to maintain a powerful military establishment to control their elite troops. The suggestion in _TGTWC_ that the women know how to fight and could easily put down male rebellion simply begs the question, since knowledge isn't enough - armies require training, weapons, support and logistics services all of which simply couldn't be supported under the women's primitive economies and in any case could be done quickly. In the end, everything boils down to the root of all evil - money! Have I clarified what I meant? AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:43:37 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: 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 11:59, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > 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 I've given a few of my "generic" objections to Le Guin in a reply to Madrone which will answer your question in part. For the rest: unfortunately I don't have either of the two books at hand, and I'd also like to have my diary in front of me when I reply to your note. Since I'm going to Rome this evening before I return to home, I'll have to defer further comments until after Wednesday. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ___________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:00:53 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thank you Madrone; <> Or to put it more bluntly, doesn't there need to be some basic understanding that feminism cannot be defined by men anymore than anti-racism can be defined by whites. Feminism is and must be - by, for and about women. When women stop being the center of feminist discussion, whether of sci - fi or anything else; it is no longer feminism. When men make themselves the center of discussion, it looks to me like more of the same old, same old. I can find that anywhere, or more accurately - everywhere, except in woman only or separatist space. It's fine with me if men benefit from feminism, but isn't it a little ludicrous for them to try to take it over? Doesn't feminism exist precisely to oppose dominating male behavior and institutions? <> Exactly! Mary-Ellen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:03:27 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 2/8/99 12:46:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: >Economics tells us the constraints under which very large groups must work and it also tells us the minimum infrastructure - industrial AND cultural - that high-technology very large groups require. It is here that Le Guin and Tepper fail. -- good point, although at least in Tepper's case I was assuming she was being metaphorical rather than trying for a 'hard SF' suspension of disbelief. >Efficiency demands economies of scale and efficiency isn't just desirable in a technological civilisation - it's absolutely essential. -- good point, which also applies to the cultural aspect of economics. In most places at most times, vested interests oppose change -- and since the benefits of change are largely in the future, they tend to be stronger. Eg., the first person to invent the "flying shuttle" (a crucial bit of technological innovation) was nearly lynched and was run out of town by weavers fearing technological unemployment. It took a rather unusual social- political environment for that sort of thing to be supressed. >She fails to explain how such a monstrous non-productive, resource-gobbling system tying up close to half the population could be supported by her very primitive economies. -- hmmm. I sort of assumed it wasn't as primitive as it looked, although having half the population doing damn-all productive did seem a bit extreme. Particularly as the living standards didn't seem extremely low. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:22:30 -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 think a few days ago there was a post stating something to the effect that since Joanna Russ is a lesbian and men are of no interest to her, in The Female Man what appeared to be a condemnation of male domination was really a discussion of interaction among women, how lesbians are perceived by others and among themselves. Could someone have actually said such a thing? I think the book does a good job showing the interaction among women. The Whileaway world showed how lesbians could interact with safety, freedom, love and creativity while still accepting individual conflicts and irritations. When Joanna showed herself to women from the 1970's there was good discussion of how lesbians are perceived by heterosexual women, from fear to sexual acceptance. None of these discussions was colored as anything else. But when Russ spends a good portion of the book discussing male oppression whether by actual physical, political or psychological means, I think she meant just that. One of my favorite quotes from Jael, page 194: >>When you grow up as an old-fashioned girl, you always remember that cozy comfort: Daddy getting angry a lot but Mummy just sighs. When Daddy says, "For God's sake, can't you women ever remember anything without being told?" he isn't asking a real question any more than he'd ask a real question of a lamp or a wastebasket. I blinked my silver eyes inside my box. If you stumble over a lamp and you curse that lamp and then you become aware that inside that lamp (or that wooden box or that pretty girl or that piece of bric-a-brac) is a pair of eyes watching you and that pair of eyes is not amused--what then? Mommy never shouted, "I hate your bloody guts!" She controlled herself to avoid a scene. That was her job. I've been doing it for her ever since.>> I agree that the book was intended more for women than men. Russ could have given up on men, thinking that even if they perceived the pair of unamused eyes, they wouldn't be very interested in seeing the person behind them. Her interest was probably more in the area of women perceiving their own personhood. Separatism would be a liberating atmosphere for the woman's increased perceptions, and she probably didn't care how that would effect men. Thanks Sharon for your articulate perspective on separatism. I'm enriched by the many articulate women on this list. (Special thanks to you Tanya, I haven't seen much from you but have greatly enjoyed what there has been.) Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:26:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: word for the day: vatic This is from a word of the day list, and I thought how appropriately it applies to some people. Joyce vatic ("VAT-ik") adj origin: from the Latin "vates," meaning "seer, prophet" 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a prophet; oracular. "Far from demonstrating that the author is dead, this essay stands as a monument to the monstrous arrogance of a man whose authority derives solely from his talent for uttering absolute rubbish in a tone of vatic infallibility ... I don't see how I can possibly be expected to summarize it." --Steve Schroer's syndicated 'review' of Roland Barthes' arcane work of literary theory "The Death of the Author". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 05:46:35 -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 Nicola Griffith writes: >Interesting. Thanks for this; it's not something I had considered. I'll have >to go away and think about it. Such courtesy makes me glad to contribute. >Do you have an interpretation of the "second class citizen" part of the >passage? Whileaway is thinly populated and scarcely industrialized, and has a lower level of technology and less influence than Earth. In the context of an expanding interstellar empire, it is provincial in the literal and probably also in the figurative sense if its people are "hicks in overalls, farmers in canvas pants and plain shirts." The Earth-men regard Janet as second-class, which apparently no one else ever has. She needn't consider herself second-class to be aware of it. Janet is one of the "very few who can be free", "some sort of chief of police" with "more popular influence than anyone else." She could be, for example, the sheriff of a rural county visited by FBI agents, or the leader of a native tribe visited by colonizers. As stupid and ignorant as the Earth-men might be, they have authority on a grander scale and the weapons to enforce it. Janet can feel superior to them as individuals and yet acknowledge that to space travellers, Whileaway is "quaint but not impressive." I thought that was what made her for a moment feel small. Syela ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:46:39 -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, Davy Others have said how uncomfortable they were with the Davy scene, and I agree. I can relate to the idea of loving men's bodies while disliking their minds, but the mental picture evoked by the scene was unpleasant. The unease comes from the fact that even though Davy was just a glorified vibrator, he still looked like a man, and there is a human response not to objectify other humans. I think it was to a minor degree the same emotion that is intentionally aroused by anti-abortionists when they show pictures of dead fetuses. Many who are pro-choice think that the fetus was a potential, not actual human being; but seeing that form evokes in us the intended feelings of shared humanity. I don't know Russ's feelings on abortion, I would assume she's pro-choice. Does anyone else think she could have been alluding to this situation? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:00:21 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: What's off-topic In-Reply-To: <001901be5314$0b00b680$355cadce@ligeia.concentric> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 7 Feb 99 Lilith wrote: > 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. ... I think it is been said before on the list but apparently there are still some list members who missed it: It is NEVER OFF-TOPIC to discuss on this list any book or short-story that is feminist sf, fantasy or utopia, regardless if a BDG discussion is underway at the same time or not. To quote the BDG guidelines (http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/bdg/): "The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSFFU list, just focus the discussion. [...] We'll use this main list but we can move the discussion to a separate list if many people complain about volume" And to quote the FSFFU guidelines (http://www.exo.net/~lauraq/femsf/listserv/): "Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, Marge Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, and many others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other writers like them? The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for discussion of this literature. [...] Special Note: A group of list-members also coordinates a special Book Discussion Group. Books are selected in advance for discussion on the list. This helps to make a more rounded discussion on specific books. This does not prohibit discussion of the BDG books at other times; nor does it prohibit discussion of non-BDG books. " For what's it worth. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:44:30 +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: The Hand of Lightness (was Re: Le Guin's *The Eye In-Reply-To: <19990207234633.B12383@canolog.ninthwonder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > 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. > There is the option that works so well in chatrooms. It's called *ignore*. ...geminiwalker "please don't feed the trolls" To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 1/12/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:03:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: power Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" S.M. Stirling said: "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." What makes people think that the two aren't connected? One might argue why should feminists write feminist sf--especially given all the media driven commentary about whether or not people read books anymore--why shouldn't they get out there and organize voting if they want to change society? Social change, I would argue, does not come about by any single effort or is driven by a single cause, or is even always linked to conscious choices. (That is, I doubt the MEN who invented the birth control pill--as far as I know it was men, but I'm not at all sure, so please correct me if yo know better) were driven by the desire to drive women's liberation, but some argue that it had that effect. If I'm not careful I'm going to go into Foucauldian commentary on "power" as networks, not as a single object to be stolen back from the oppressors (and we already know where that might lead us). The best feminist sf, I think, shows that "the oppressed" can also be "the oppressors." Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:11:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <017701be530f$509af520$0db11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, donna simone wrote: > 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. To add to this point, the canonical "horrible dirty trench warfare" story isn't necessarily relevant to the kind of story LeGuin, or anyone else, is telling. War today isn't likely to involve standing in a lice-infested trench facing heavy artillery--it's rapidly becoming a different paradigm altogether. To assume that it isn't going to continue to change, or that it wouldn't be different in a different kind of setting, is incredibly narrow-sighted. You can't go through life assuming that everyone is always coming from the same perspective you are. > I am beginning to think this a mole operation. I wouldn't go that far--I just think that some people have great difficulty stepping out of a particular, familiar, perspective. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- and I was blessed with a birth and a death and I guess I just want some say in between --ani ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:44:53 -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" 02/06 12:16 AM > - 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." (Jane takes this up) Now, we've all done some kind of political activism here, right? So we know that our dearest beliefs sometimes have to bend a little. Conversely, sometimes the price of bending our beliefs is too high--the social change that results contradicts our basic aims, we are spiritually destroyed, our movement crumbles, we loose legitimacy. (In the interest of staying remotely REMOTELY not too OT, I will only offer historical examples to those who want to take it up off list) We always aim to use our tools on the master's house; sometimes we can, sometimes we can't. Because we don't live in the world of the Ideal, we just do our best. That doesn't mean that we ought to degenerate into a world of realpolitick, where we, for example, suggest strapping people over the muzzles of cannon. Our ideals (small " i ", note) exist in a dialectic tension with our practices. It's like those toy wood bears on two strings that I had as a child--pulling on each string, and only pulling on ! ! each string, would move the bear forward. Pulling on one string just sent the bear spinning around to whack you on the nose. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:35:33 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: 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 11:46:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: << n the end, everything boils down to the root of all evil - money! Have I clarified what I meant? >> I keep trying to get you out of the box, and you keep jumping back in and holding down the lid. Obviously, you have a set view of How Things Can Happen. If a writer doesn't set up a novel by the rules you accept of How Things Can Happen, then she has a great writing style but is unrealistic. I have rarely seen Life confine itself to any one version of How Things Can Happen. But, look, if that's how you feel...fine. If you really believe civilizations can only develop one way, that's what you believe. I'm not going to change your mind (although, having studied civilizations, I find it difficult to see how you come to your conclusion. Life, people, and events are both more creative and unpredictable than you seem to be comfortable with). If you want to go any further with this, I suggest we take it off line. Money is the root of all evil? I respectfully suggest you read up on Mr. Hershey. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:42:02 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: BDG The Female Man, Davy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/8/99 2:48:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: << Does anyone else think she could have been alluding to this situation? >> Wow. What a thought. It was disturbing, wasn't it, to have something described that was not and never would be human but looked to be so. And there was something fetal about Davy's nakedness within the protective structure of the house. I'll have to think about this...Thanks! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:01:08 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 11:16:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << or from your hypothetical Italian mother >> I'm taking this discussion off list because I think it is disturbing others. Stirling, she wasn't a hypothetical Italian mother. She was my grandmother, and I clearly stated that. I'm becoming a little concerned that you may not be reading my posts in any detail. To simplify: If I understand what is going on here, then it seems that you are saying LeGuin doesn't depict soldiers realistically (is that correct?) and I am saying that there are more variations on soldiers than you allow in your discussion. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:15:01 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The one place where I feel Le Guin's grasp of the group mentality is bang-on is among the anarchists on Anarres in The Dispossessed, when a tremendous number of them are angry at Shevek and the radio syndicate. And on mature reflection, I'd extend that to the corruption in the syndicates in general. That is _exactly_ how anarchists act when things go bad, and I know this precisely because I've been involved in anarchist politics for some time now. And when Tirin gets driven crazy because of his play--that is how serious dissent on the left hits people. Even as we speak, I am blacklisted by the local Maoists and CP for remarking that somewhere in theoretical Marxism were the roots of what happened in China and the USSR, and that even though this did not discredit Marxism as a whole, it still needed to be dealt with. This is where LeGuin is bang on about groups of leftists--you can't criticize the central belief, no matter how mildly. And believe me, it's been a rough couple of weeks because of all this. I am in sympathy with Tirin. >>> Anthea Hartley Stanton 02/07 10:10 AM >>> 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: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:27:08 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: N Clowder Subject: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This post in response to the Le Guin/Tepper/"war in the trenches" thread. I'm posting to suggest an analogy between fiction and works of visual art. I'm thinking of the school of photographic realism that flourished . . . sorry, I'm not into art history . . . in the 1950's? 1960's? There were some artists who did incredible oil paintings that looked . . . well, "real." Like a color photograph. Amazing detail. To fault Le Guin's or Tepper's sketchy or erroneous depictions of collective violence or of technology/economy - to me - is to ask the authors to write "photo realism." To say that, within the field where she (the author) focuses her camera, she must accurately depict everything (emphasis on "everything"). Tepper doesn't develop a coherent economic model in "The Gate to Women's Country" - but I think this is like saying that Monet failed to show how the bridge over the lily pond was constructed, or its pilings going down into the water (wildly guessing about the pictures here, but I hope the point is clear). If you are a bridge builder - or an economist - you are sure to notice the oversight, and possibly be disappointed if not annoyed - but I wouldn't describe this as a "failure" or shortcoming of the artist - but simply as reflecting how she focuses her camera, and what she chooses as subject in the first place. I don't believe it is possible for humans to construct a world (in fiction or elsewhere) in which every aspect is fully and valid-ly worked out. If Tepper *were* presenting herself as photo realist (or if The Gate were *about* economics) then the failure to establish a valid techno-economic model for her world would indeed be a failing. Since The Gate is not that kind of book, I am content to assume that the pilings of the bridge are indeed there, and focus on where Tepper has so much to offer - on the psychology of power (individual and collective). I may not agree with all that she paints, but I value the opportunity to get a look through someone else's eyes/mind. It is precisely where she deviates from "my" reality that I get the most from her . . . assuming, of course, that she doesn't deviate so far as to go into another "school" altogether. Which she doesn't, or I wouldn't read her in the first place. (And when I get hot about the way an author deviates from my world view, it is when I perceive her view as threatening in some way.) With regard to Le Guin and collective violence, it is clear that she and S.M. Stirling are painting wildly different canvasses - even when they look at the "same" thing. I have my preference, and I only get confused by the notion that one is "righter" than the other - as *works of art*. If you take their art as *models for society*, however, I can understand better the passion of the arguments flying back and forth. And that is one of the great roles of art, isn't it? I think I say this every time I post, but I'm always amazed at the variety of responses to any given work and at the passion with which various views are presented, argued and, sometimes, defended. It can be both a good and bad thing. Nell Clowder clowder@mail.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:09:16 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: 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 2/8/99 3:46:46 AM Mountain Standard Time, PPAQEBB@GROVE.IUP.EDU writes: >Janet can feel superior to them as individuals and yet acknowledge that to space travellers, Whileaway is "quaint but not impressive." I thought that was what made her for a moment feel small. -- that was the impression I got, too. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:11:44 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 The Female Man, Davy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/8/99 3:48:39 AM Mountain Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: >Others have said how uncomfortable they were with the Davy scene, and I agree. -- hmmm. I thought it was a funny piece of satire, myself -- sort of a takeoff of how women are shown in some pornographic material -- but I can see your point. >Many who are pro-choice think that the fetus was a potential, not actual human being; but seeing that form evokes in us the intended feelings of shared humanity. I don't know Russ's feelings on abortion, I would assume she's pro- choice. Does anyone else think she could have been alluding to this situation? -- was that tactic used by anti-choice propaganda back when TFM was written? I'm not sure. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:21:41 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: 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 2/8/99 7:11:31 AM Mountain Standard Time, susan@APOCALYPSE.ORG writes: >War today isn't likely to involve standing in a lice-infested trench facing heavy artillery-- -- the details change (for example, I'd be very surprised if future armies were all-male) but the underlying experience remains; the stress and constant threat of death, for instance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:31:16 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 2/8/99 7:45:41 AM Mountain Standard Time, JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes: >That doesn't mean that we ought to degenerate into a world of realpolitick, where we, for example, suggest strapping people over the muzzles of cannon. >> -- That's not realism, it's a strong conviction based on principle. I think men who attack and kill women for the 'crime' of being female should die; they're too dangerous to tolerate, and besides, they _deserve_ it. In the case of the Taliban, who've been letting women die rather than violate their "modesty" by seeing male doctors, and literally shooting women for going out without a head-to-toe covering, and other vilenesses to many and horrible to list (Kabul is getting unpleasantly like "Walk to the End of the World territory) I rather think the case is quite strong. Similarly, when I was working in family law, and saw abusers stalking women who'd fled to shelters, I did wish (but could not say) that more of them had used the "burning bed" method of divorce. And I'd have cheerfully defended them in court on the grounds of justifiable homicide. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:55:54 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 2/8/99 10:15:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes: << The one place where I feel Le Guin's grasp of the group mentality is bang- on is among the anarchists on Anarres in The Dispossessed, when a tremendous number of them are angry at Shevek and the radio syndicate. -- agreement there. That was very well and subtley done. >Even as we speak, I am blacklisted by the local Maoists and CP for remarking that somewhere in theoretical Marxism were the roots of what happened in China and the USSR -- sounds familar from my university days. It never ceased to amaze me how much they enjoyed throwing anathemas at each other amid cries of "heretic!" (or "deviationist!") As Jefferson said, one of the hardest things in life is to _not_ despise those with whom we profoundly disagree. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:58:28 -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: niccola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wanted to warn everyone out there who has not yet read _Slow River_ that, though I picked it up just to read during a writing break, I could not stop reading and I lost a whole day! The voices said "Put it down, Susan, put it down!" But I was powerless. It was soooo delicious! Damn you Niccola! Thank you Niccola! :) Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:10:45 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/8/99 10:42:46 AM Mountain Standard Time, clowder@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes: << To fault Le Guin's or Tepper's sketchy or erroneous depictions of collective violence or of technology/economy - to me - is to ask the authors to write "photo realism." -- There you have a very good point. You can't validly criticise a gazelle for being a bad giraffe. I think the question is a matter of authorial _intent_ in a situation like that. Eg., "Animal Farm" is a fable -- it isn't meant to be taken "literally", even to the extent that we do in any fictional work. On the other hand, is "1984"? (Or, to wrench myself back on topic, is "Walk to the End of the World"? I could never make myself believe in the Holdfast as a model of an actual human society that would last six months. Even the Taliban hasn't gone _that_ far.) I think, judging from the other evidence, that LeGuin really _is_ trying to portray her imagined worlds very much "as they would really be", given the initial premises. She puts a good deal of effort into economics and social structure; the books are "about" that, in a real sense. Eg., "The Dispossessed" is "about" left-anarchism vs. capitalism, in some sense, and "The Left Hand" spends a good deal of time in historical reverie about capitalism and technology. About Tepper or Russ, I'm unsure -- I've always thought that TFM contained a good deal of satirical exaggeration in the vein of Gulliver's Travels, but maybe I'm misinterpreting. >but I think this is like saying that Monet failed to show how the bridge over the lily pond was constructed, or its pilings going down into the water -- hmmm, I think the analogy would be more accurate if we were talking about a Surrealist like Dali, who'd show the bridge floating above the water with no support at all. There's room for all types of fiction, of course. When you're trying for realistic social extrapolation, I've always found that you have to _know_ how things work in your created world, even if you don't put most of that into the story. If the explanations aren't there in your own mind or notes, or if they're very wonky, it shows.(1) One thing that does ring my chimes is portraying any type of human being as less than human -- as a stick-figure without an interior life, unless it's in an obviously fabulistic mode. (1) of course, there's a subjective element there. A while ago I had an editor tell me that when reading my stuff, he mentally transposed all the female characters in traditionally 'male' roles into men. This rather took me aback... 8-). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:01:16 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 Thanks, Susan . I love to hear that I stole your day. Tee hee. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:04:54 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 Syela, thanks. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:21:08 -0600 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: Question... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In message: Dr. Michael Marc Levy wrote: >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. ... material omitted ... >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. Dr. Levy's observations were underscored last night, Feb. 7, 1999, on an episode of "Star Trex Deep Space 9." (Yes, I'm a closet trexxie of sorts) Although the episode did take place admittedly in DS9's "alternative universe," a main portagonist was a lesbian who at the end of the show was seen walking away with another women with the implication that they had more than just professional business to conduct. From the story line, it sounds like we might see more of her. Interestly, the heavy, Kura's evil twin, in the "alternative universe" was revealed to have sexual interests in both males and females. On the other hand, DS9 and other Star Trex episodes think nothing of biologically impossible relations between aliens of different species as long as they are male-female pairs and just now got around considering other sexual orientations. I personally know that Dr. Levy is right because of a short story that I am submitting for commercial publication has a lesbian as its main protagonist. Part of compiling a list of potential places to submit it involved checking to see that they had peviously published stories with lesbian characters. On that count, I didn't have to scratch off any of the mainstream places. Yours, Paul V. Heinrich heinrich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:45:07 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Question... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I realize this isn't a TV-fannish list, but perhaps spoiler protocol could be followed when syndicated TV shows, non-syndicated TV show, and movies are being discussed...? I'm literally weeks behind in my Star Trek viewing (could be the hundreds of messages off this list, but who can tell?) and now that I know DS9 is possible confronting its long subtle flirtations with gender relations, I have *so* much to watch! In my ignorance, I could have ignored it til Spring break or writer's block..... Thanks! On 8 Feb 99, , Paul V. Heinrich wrote: > Dr. Levy's observations were underscored last night, > Feb. 7, 1999, on an episode of "Star Trex Deep Space 9." > (Yes, I'm a closet trexxie of sorts) Although the > episode did take place admittedly in DS9's "alternative > universe," a main portagonist was a lesbian who at the > end of the show was seen walking away with another women > with the implication that they had more than just > professional business to conduct. From the story line, > it sounds like we might see more of her. Interestly, > the heavy, Kura's evil twin, in the "alternative universe" > was revealed to have sexual interests in both males > and females. On the other hand, DS9 and other Star > Trex episodes think nothing of biologically impossible > relations between aliens of different species as long > as they are male-female pairs and just now got around > considering other sexual orientations. > > I personally know that Dr. Levy is right because of > a short story that I am submitting for commercial > publication has a lesbian as its main protagonist. > Part of compiling a list of potential places to > submit it involved checking to see that they had > peviously published stories with lesbian characters. > On that count, I didn't have to scratch off any of > the mainstream places. > > Yours, > Paul V. Heinrich > heinrich@intersurf.com > Baton Rouge, LA > Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:27:15 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <003f01be5323$942a1820$355cadce@ligeia.concentric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would just like to put out there, for what it's worth, that this conversation around the soldier's POV and warfare has been very valuable to me. I am writing about a soldier, and her experiences with warfare (it's scifi) and not having experienced it first hand, I've had to rely quite a lot on research. SM's description of the trench soldier made me worry that I had missed something with my characters motivations. Further discussion, however, has reassured me that my character need not have the same motivations as SM's trench soldier. Thanks, Sophia At 12:26 AM 2/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >-----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 * >********************************************* > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:20:17 -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: the female man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Depending on your local libraries' policies, this may not work, but I like to donate a good book whenever I can to the small- town library where my mother works. If you make it a memorial, they also find it hard to say no. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of finding books that YOU want to read, instead of buying them. But it makes me feel like I'm doing something for the common good. Especially when I check back to see people have taken them out. Bonnie On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty wrote: > 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: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:42:06 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 99-02-07 11:58:47 EST, you write: << 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... >> I agree with this. She tells us that the race on the planet (sorry-poor memory here) is both genders and neither genders at one, and that they do not have pronouns for male and female, then she uses "he" throughout the entire book to describe them. Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:42:15 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 99-02-07 16:30:32 EST, you write: >> 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?< Was it really futile? How many remember that image? How many of us think of the courage of that one person? How many of us think of the concern/compassion/consternation of the tank drivers? How many people have been inspired by that action to make changes in their own lives? How many have donated money to the cause of freedom in China because they saw that one person stand up to tanks in order to fight for his own freedom? How many picked up the banner of freedom themselves because of that action? How many in the future will? The fact that it is spoken about and remembered many years later says in and of itself that it wasn't futile. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:46:44 -0800 Reply-To: Bonnie Gray Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: OT: self-defense behavior In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: > 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-).) > > > In reponse to both of these: I think that women in the martial arts starting out as being only able to hit in an "extremely symobolic patting manner, tentative and apologetic" is a popular myth among martial artists. I have done several forms of martial arts for a number of years, and been involved with many self-defense classes. My experience has been that both men and women tend to just start out clumsy. Maybe it's because I'm a small woman myself, but the men starting out tend to apologize to me more at the beginning, especially the larger ones, because they are convinced that their improper wrist lock is hurting me. Of course, there are always the youngsters out "to prove something" and, admitedly, these are usually, though not always, young boys. However, we upper belts can spot them a mile away, and sick the best people of both genders on them before they hurt somebody (usually themselves...) Also, admittedly, I have seen this behavior in some of the older women who attend one-day self-defense seminars. Then again, I was also popped in the nose by one (my own fault...but she was very apologetic). The forms I study are very self-defense oriented (Hapkido, Aikido, Jujitsu). Maybe it's different in something like Tae Kwon Do or Karate. Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:48:56 -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: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Feb 99 23:46:33 EST." <19990207234633.B12383@canolog.ninthwonder.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Madrone wrote that we seem to be pulled >out of the >space of explorative feminism/feminist fiction and into that exhaustive place >where one constantly must defend (not argue or invent, but outright defend) >the vital ideas of feminism. I feel this pull also. I try not to respond, as some have suggested, or to "defend" only by restating those vital ideas and trying to start discussion about them; but this doesn't wholly solve the problem. I still have to wade through arguments, through derisive dismissals, through personal insults, etc. I desperately want there to be a change in the way we talk on this list. And Mary-Ellen wrote: >feminism cannot be defined by men anymore than anti-racism can be defined >by whites. Feminism is and must be - by, for and about women. When women stop >being the center of feminist discussion, whether of sci - fi or anything else; >it is no longer feminism. When men make themselves the center of discussion >it looks to me like more of the same old, same old. I took a look at the last 760 pieces of mail that came through this list. Here's a breakdown of the top 5 posters: "S.M. Stirling" : 113 (15%) Marina : 43 (6%) Santanico : 41 (6%) "Demetria M. Shew" : 39 (5%) Sophia Hegner : 34 (4%) For any one person to be 15% of the postings on this list is inappropriate. For one man to be 15% of the postings on a feminist list (almost as many postings as the next three people combined) is, as Mary-Ellen says, the same old, same old. (I'm afraid that I don't know whether Santanico is male or female so I can't give you quite the breakdown that this deserves.) I might suggest to *all* posters that they consider this viewpoint: It's not necessary to answer every post. It's not even necessary to answer every post about which you have an opinion. Stop. Think. Let it pass. Do not act as you always see others act: aspire to better behavior. Laugh things off. Go lightly, as Phoebe says. Those people who do this best are often the people who choose their fights most wisely and most effectively. And all of us feminists know about the importance of that skill. :) Thank you. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:11:02 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain tanya said, re: pronouns in leguin: > I agree with this. She tells us that the race on the planet (sorry-poor >memory here) is both genders and neither genders at one, and that they do not >have pronouns for male and female, then she uses "he" throughout the entire >book to describe them. Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to >describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. i haven't actually read the work in question, but i have read some essays by leguin & in one of them she says that she regrets her treatment of the pronoun there... that @ first she thought it was crap to be angry about the use of "he" as a universal pronoun, but she had changed her mind. (that is, of course, major paraphrasing, but the point is the same) johanna http://members.tripod.com/~hannakins i guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower, makes you talk a little lower... -counting crows ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:14:11 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 Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain jessie said: >It's not necessary to answer every post. It's not even necessary to answer >every post about which you have an opinion. Stop. Think. brava! brava! as a newbie & a mostly-lurker i would like to add one more plea: PLEASE everyone, when writing replies, could you only include the relevant bits from the message you are replying to? it is v. frustrating to see an entire message (esp. the longer ones) left intact attached to a reply that is only a few sentences long. thanks. johanna http://members.tripod.com/~hannakins i guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower, makes you talk a little lower... -counting crows ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:12:47 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 2/8/99 2:52:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.com writes: << I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. >> It might help to remember when this was first published. Prior to 1974 or so, all books by definition had he/him as the majority pronoun. Things were really different, and I doubt that any book with mostly she/her or even the wonderful 'per' would have got past any editor. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the very first novel I ever read with less than 100% male pronouns. I was 24 or 25 at the time...quite a revelation!!! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:18:04 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: Naughty Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Um. Have any of y'all out there taken the leap and sent a work in for publication? Any good strategies...other than tying bells on it and chucking it through the publishing house window?? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:53:40 -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, Davy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------393385450CF2854B92832CC8" --------------393385450CF2854B92832CC8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there a significant difference in your (plural) reaction to sex with the golem in Piercy's He, She and It? Is it the difference between a character and a prop? I'm aware that women (pace Andrea Dworkin) may have a different attitude toward penetration than men, and that my own mild repulsion toward sex with artificial objects may not be shared by all or most men. I'm leaving the whole prompting message on my response because I think it's relevant; indeed the discussion has more elements to it than what are mentioned here. I'm also not apologizing for taking space as a man on a feminist listserv, since I don't think I have abused the privilege. Joyce Jones wrote: > Others have said how uncomfortable they were with the Davy scene, and I > agree. I can relate to the idea of loving men's bodies while disliking their > minds, but the mental picture evoked by the scene was unpleasant. The > unease comes from the fact that even though Davy was just a glorified > vibrator, he still looked like a man, and there is a human response not to > objectify other humans. I think it was to a minor degree the same emotion > that is intentionally aroused by anti-abortionists when they show pictures > of dead fetuses. Many who are pro-choice think that the fetus was a > potential, not actual human being; but seeing that form evokes in us the > intended feelings of shared humanity. I don't know Russ's feelings on > abortion, I would assume she's pro-choice. Does anyone else think she could > have been alluding to this situation? > > Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:03:40 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stirling: <-- 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?> to quote/paraphrase my favorite "teen slut" icon Fiona Apple: "...cause I'm a bad, bad girl..." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:08:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" 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 Good point, Madrone. Within the last year, I wrote a "letter to the editor" that was printed in CIO Magazine. I was furious when it appeared, with my inclusive language carefully "fixed"! HE, HE, HIM, throughout, when you can bet I didn't write it that way. Some editors still do that, apparently. Hopefully none of them are editing SF. Nina "Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > In a message dated 2/8/99 2:52:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, TMBouwman@AOL.com > writes: > > << I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to > describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. >> > It might help to remember when this was first published. Prior to 1974 or so, > all books by definition had he/him as the majority pronoun. Things were > really different, and I doubt that any book with mostly she/her or even the > wonderful 'per' would have got past any editor. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was > the very first novel I ever read with less than 100% male pronouns. I was 24 > or 25 at the time...quite a revelation!!! > > Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:07:24 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: Pronouns Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-08 20:13:53 EST, you write: << Good point, Madrone. Within the last year, I wrote a "letter to the editor" that was printed in CIO Magazine. I was furious when it appeared, with my inclusive language carefully "fixed"! HE, HE, HIM, throughout, when you can bet I didn't write it that way. >> Just a comment to show pervasive language is. I am a Christian, but often refer to God as She. My son, when he was 5, told me I was wrong becasue God was supposed to be He! Why? Because that was all my son ever heard. Why do I refer to God as She? So he'll hear it! And, so he and my daughter will get used to the idea that God can be both male and female. And, if the most powerful being in the universe is both male and female then respect for both genders will, hopefully, follow. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:07:22 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 99-02-08 19:20:58 EST, you write: << It might help to remember when this was first published. >> True. However, I guess my complaint was that it presented a very different idea of gender for it's time and yet stuck to the old way of referring to people overall. It wasn't a desire to have "her" used to refer to the people, but to really show how different that race was in gender from us. I had a hard time seeing the protaganist as anything other than a man because LeGuin always referred to that person as "him", and yet LeGuin told us many times how different the people on Winter were from what we know here on our world and in our time. I want it to have been more groundbreaking than it was. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:53:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Racial Homogeneity In-Reply-To: <5d58965d.36bbe49b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello, Can anyone give me some titles of works where race ceases to be a factor in identity? I seem to recall shades of grey somewhere... Thanks, pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:07:21 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 99-02-08 19:12:20 EST, you write: << i haven't actually read the work in question, but i have read some essays by leguin & in one of them she says that she regrets her treatment of the pronoun there... that @ first she thought it was crap to be angry about the use of "he" as a universal pronoun, but she had changed her mind. (that is, of course, major paraphrasing, but the point is the same) >> Johanna, Thank you for this insight into the author. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:52:10 -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: Racial Homogeneity MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit That's a paradoxical question, like Tolstoy's club to join which you had to stand on a corner and NOT think of a white bear. If race is not mentioned, homogeneity may be assumed, but what kind? In SF, usually white (as in Star Wars). Even if the result is gray, as in Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s "Dark Benediction" or a story by Kornbluth in which southern racists (another stereotype) execute a man from a future without racial differences, "race" is still a factor, even if it is what I consider a pernicious "fiction." When I was (much) young, I did not realize Chip Delany was "black" (which he isn't, literally), until maybe his 5th or 6th novel. Characters were differentiated but not hierarchically ranked by characteristics that could be construed as racial. Pamela Bedore wrote: > Hello, > > Can anyone give me some titles of works where race ceases to be a factor > in identity? I seem to recall shades of grey somewhere... > > Thanks, > > pamela bedore > department of english > simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:06:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: list stuff - mea culpa Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII sorry, y'all. i was fooling around with some list stuff and completely forgot to set it back so everyone could unsub themselves and change their options. it's okay now. so sorry for inconveniences ... Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:09:20 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: maybe OT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Into the fray... It seems that I have very little to say about our current title during the past couple of months (being short on reading time right now), but just -have- to put in my 2 cents on OT's. I'm really sorry if this is inappropriate. However, I've just caught up with two days' worth of mail and am really distressed about the general tone of this list right now. (granted, I may be overwhelmed by reading two days' worth of posts all at once) I don't want to offend anyone here, because I don't dislike anyone or feel that anyone is taking up too much time on the list or that my comfort or happiness is compromised by what someone says here. But I do feel that it's unnecessarily personal, the commentary I've been reading. Is there anything dangerous going on here? Is anything personally threatening being said? Is there any woman-bashing going on? I feel some perspective is needed (admittedly, maybe not mine). Where is our tolerance for things we don't agree with? I don't feel that Mr. Stirling (who doesn't need me to defend him, which I'm not) is committing a sin great enough to warrant the hostility with which he is being received. I feel that there must be something we are scared of if we are going to be unable to hear something counter to the feminist party line. Is it really necessary to count up the posts and compare them along gender lines? If more women want to post, they are free to do so. This is bordering on the absurd. Is it so horrifying to think that perhaps a male viewpoint carries credence? I'm not saying any one person is 'right'. But I didn't think that was the point, anyway. I thought the point was, discussion, learning from each other, discovering and sharing feminist SF/F. I'm not interested only in hearing people who agree with each other pat each other on the backs. I want to hear everyone. But I feel that some feminists are trying to silence other feminists. Let's face it, we're all invested in our own prejudices and we are all displaying the same inflexibilities of which we accuse others. FWIW Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:16:26 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gingembre wrote: > > > I wouldn't go that far--I just think that some people have great > difficulty stepping out of a particular, familiar, perspective. > And isn't that ironic for a bunch of people interested in sf, fantasy and utopia?! HA! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 01:15:42 -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: Left Hand of Darkness and Pronouns MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII tanya said, re: pronouns in leguin: >> I agree with this. She tells us that the race on the planet >>(sorry-poor memory here) is both genders and neither genders >>at one, and that they do not have pronouns for male and female, >>then she uses "he" throughout the entire book to describe them. I would note that LHoD is told in the first person. Genly Ai comes from a society with 1950's sex roles, including the division of labor. He is the sort of person who would consider "he" to be appropriate for "any person whose sex is not specified" (as my dictionary alleges), and who would translate a genderless third-person pronoun as "he". >>Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to >>describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. I think it would be out of character for Genly Ai to use it. My biggest problem with the book was that his sexual prejudice made him seem to be living in the past although the setting is c. 1500 years into the future. I suspect that this, and the use of "he", feet, miles, and Fahrenheit temperatures, are all concessions to the 1960's American audience. Had Genly come from a culture more enlightened than the readers, one where sex roles were optional and a genderless personal pronoun common, it would have been a different book. Readers would have had more difficulty getting into his POV, and would have had to note on their own the lack of sexism on Winter because it would have been unremarkable to the narrator. 36 degrees writes: >i haven't actually read the work in question, but i have read some >essays by leguin & in one of them she says that she regrets her >treatment of the pronoun there... "Winter's King" (published 1969, the same year as LHoD) is told in the third person and uses "she" for the Gethenians. I'm not sure that this is an improvement, since it also projects gender onto genderless characters. A genderless pronoun would thus work best for me. Most readers seem resistant to one, however, and if one is used, will ascribe male or female gender to Gethenians or artificial life forms or first-person narrators that don't identify their sex on page 1. I think this reflects a sexist indoctrination (similar to Genly Ai's) to judge and to relate to people not as individuals but as women or as men. Nothing will make such a reader understand that the Gethenians aren't one or the other, and a coined genderless pronoun will be incomprehensible and grating. Feedback from my own (amateur) writing suggests that such readers are in the majority (in general, not on this list). I can see practical reasons to use "he" in LHoD. In retrospect, it would be nice if the book had influenced readers to look at things a different way, but I doubt that it would have been as influential or as widely read with another default pronoun. Syela ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:30:51 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For those thinking about presentations/constructions of war, I can STRONGLY recommend Elizabeth Scarborough's A HEALER'S WAR. Scarborough served as a nurse in VietNam, and in some aftewords to that book and her later ones, she talks about how long that experience took to deal with fictionally. The protagonist/shero of THW is a nurse in VietNam--I don't want to say too much about it for fear of spoiling it, but I think many of you might find the book as powerful and disturbing as I did. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:43:04 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:30 AM 9/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >For those thinking about presentations/constructions of war, I can STRONGLY >recommend Elizabeth Scarborough's A HEALER'S WAR. Scarborough served as a >nurse in VietNam, and in some aftewords to that book and her later ones, she >talks about how long that experience took to deal with fictionally. The >protagonist/shero of THW is a nurse in VietNam--I don't want to say too much >about it for fear of spoiling it, but I think many of you might find the >book as powerful and disturbing as I did. Speaking of books about women at war, I believe I once saw a book at my local store that was in fact titled "Women At War" or something similar. It was an anthology, edited by a rather prominent female SF author (was it Esther Friesner? I can't remember). It admittedly looked rather interesting, but I was kind of dubious about it; I'm just not sure the female experience of war would be all that different from the male experience of it (in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty pathetic excuse). Anyway, anyone here read this anthology? Any good? Or does it have that familiar, irritating, "Wow-What-A-Novelty-Women-At-War-What-Won't-They-Think-Of-Next" air about it? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:45:53 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Generations of SF writers/reply to Mike Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mike Stanton asked me to name some of the writers I referred to as 'younger generation' suddenly publishing some more explicitly feminist stuff. Someone else about about "generations" issue (SM Stirling?). I should clarify my terms--remembering that I am (ahem) a literary critic who works with SF, especially feminist SF. I see a difference between the "generation" publishing the seventies feminist utopias (LeGuin's LEFT HAND actually published in late sixties, then the group including Russ' THE FEMALE MAN, Charnas' WALK TO THE END OF THE WORLD, Dorothy Bryant's THE KIN OF ATA, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME--spaced out on author's name, argg, and a few others). These utopias have been the subject of a LOT of critical work by academics. (Just realized I should say I use SF to mean speculative fiction which includes the sub-genres of "hard" (heh heh) science fiction, fantasy, horror, magical realism, etc.) Then came writers who began publishing in the eighties (and some of these might be "older"--I know Sheri Tepper only began publishing in her fifies--which blurs the generation age). But these are women writers, publishing in greater numbers, who do not explicitly present the kind of feminist viewpoint in those seventies utopian texts, or publish feminist non-fiction stuff. I don't know if they even identify as "feminists." But some of them present some interesting "feminist ideas" that I would argue had become mainstream (not perceived as radical). I thought, and others, and the feminist utopia/dystopia had gone away. Then came Esther Friesner (the first book I have of hers was published in '85--and I think I have all her stuff, I loved it from the start) who suddenly switched from the ligher humorous stuff in a MAJOR way to publish THE PSALMS OF HEROD and THE SWORD OF MARY in '95 and '96--two books anyone interested in feminist utopias/dystopias has to look at. A major post holocaust or environmental crash society that totally oppresses women in every way and in which excess babies seem to be eaten--I haven't reread because I haven't had the time/energy. Also: Elizabeth Scarborough (first publishing in the early eighties as well, wonderful fantasy which does have a feminist perspective in that the protagonists are short, chubby, brunette women instead of skinny blondes, and some revision of traditional fairy tale tropes) the suddenly moves from the humorous stuff to HEALER'S WAR (which has led her to a number of other books exploring the issues of women and war, not a popular topic among academic feminists at least). MAJOR shift in again. Then newer writers, like ones we are reading here, that deal with explicit issues and content similar to that of the seventies utopias: Kim Antieau THE JIGSAW WOMEN is right up there. And remember how many of us have been identifying our age (and in some cases region)--when you were born and where says something about the 'culture' you were raised in. Also "newer" (meaning more recently published writers) bringing feminist questions to cyberpunk and all that. There was a lot of media backlash in the eighties saying feminism is antiquated, all the problems solved, OR feminists are to blame for every social problem in the country (still see that happening). But what these writers are reporting seems to contradict that (by reporting, I mean writing about, not journalistic/factual reporting). Generations/ages: as I said, it's hard to tell. Russ and some of the other authors of the seventies feminist utopas are still alive and publishing--but in their sixties or more. And or course there were women publishing then who did not publish "feminist" works--stil alive and publishing. Younger writers have read those original writers though, in many cases, I believe. (I hope, maybe not; lots of the earlier stuff goes out of print, out of people's sight.) But scholarship is proving "feminist" writers existed earlier than we might think, given the predominant myth that ALL science fiction is male dominated. A friend of mine is working on bringing the "news" of Leslie F. Stone, a thirties feminist SF writer, to the public eye again.... The great and crippling myth of patriarchy is to cover up the past HERSTORY of feminism.........along with that of women....... Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:50:57 -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: Nalo Hopkinson, special guest at Diversicon In-Reply-To: <36BFDB1A.978B7D5@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Diversicon, a small science fiction convention based in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota will welcome Nalo Hopkinson, author of Brown Girl in the Ring and the forthcoming Midnight Robber as a Special Guest, August 6-8. Guests of Honor are Campbell Award winning author Julia Ecklar and novelist Karen Rose Cercone who together write Star Trek novels as L.A. Graf. Also attending will be Tiptree Award winner Eleanor Arnason, author of A Woman of the Iron People, Ring of Swords, and numerous other stories. For more information write to diversicon@SFMinnesota.com or send me an e-mail. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:53:20 -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: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <199902091443.IAA46044@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > > Speaking of books about women at war, I believe I once saw a book > at my local store that was in fact titled "Women At War" or something > similar. It was an anthology, edited by a rather prominent female SF author > (was it Esther Friesner? I can't remember). The book in question was co-edited by Lois McMaster Bujold and Roland Green and contains a number of fine stories. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:00:42 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Generations of SF writers/reply to Mike Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:45 AM 9/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >Then came Esther Friesner (the first book I have of hers was published in >'85--and I think I have all her stuff, I loved it from the start) who >suddenly switched from the ligher humorous stuff in a MAJOR way to publish >THE PSALMS OF HEROD and THE SWORD OF MARY in '95 and '96--two books anyone >interested in feminist utopias/dystopias has to look at. A major post >holocaust or environmental crash society that totally oppresses women in >every way and in which excess babies seem to be eaten--I haven't reread >because I haven't had the time/energy. May I just comment here and say that I absolutely love Esther Friesner's work, particularly her short stories. Her serious works are wonderful, as already stated, but I still count among my personal list of "funniest short stories ever written", her hilarious contribution to the Frankenstein anthology, "Mad at the Academy". Anyone who's unfamiliar with this should really try and find it; it's one of the best affectionate digs at the mad scientist genre I've ever read. >But scholarship is proving "feminist" writers existed earlier than we might >think, given the predominant myth that ALL science fiction is male >dominated. A friend of mine is working on bringing the "news" of Leslie F. >Stone, a thirties feminist SF writer, to the public eye again.... Interesting that you should mention this; I recently found a website that, in part, devotes itself to reviving interest in (and book sales for) forgotten feminist-themed SF/F authors of earlier days, such as Marie Corelli, Olivia Howard Dunbar and Sarah Orne Jewett. It's run by an author called Jessica Amanda Salmonson, and while it's not entirely devoted to female authors of the period (it's basically just for all old, forgotten SF/F books and authors), I'd say that theme occupies about 95% of the site. It can be found at: http://www.violetbooks.com/ Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:01:51 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:53 AM 9/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >The book in question was co-edited by Lois McMaster Bujold and Roland >Green and contains a number of fine stories. Bujold! That's the one! Thanks for aiding my memory there ;) Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:33:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice Bogstad Subject: SFRA in 1996 - comp memberships In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mike, do you remember if we gave Fred Pohl a comp membership or other expenses for SFRA here in Eau Claire? I seem to remember that we didn't as he has very strict rules about what he wants in the way of money if he is to participate....As I remember, we gave comps to only a couple of people - an editor from Madison got a comp but no expenses for example. Let me know if you remember differently. I will also be checking to see if UWEC outreach still has any records...Jan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:01:16 -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, Davy In-Reply-To: <36BF8714.58D9EC8F@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > Is there a significant difference in your (plural) reaction to sex > with the golem in Piercy's He, She and It? Is it the difference > between a character and a prop? I'm aware that women (pace Andrea > Dworkin) may have a different attitude toward penetration than men, > and that my own mild repulsion toward sex with artificial objects > may not be shared by all or most men. That's a parallel that never occurred to me--I haven't read "The Female Man" in a few years, so the Davy scene is vague at best for me, but I just read "He, She and It" recently. I probably wouldn't even call it a parallel--I felt that part of Marge Piercy's point was the golem was a real person despite being of non-organic origin, while apparently Davy isn't? My reaction to the golem having sex wasn't particulary biased by the fact that he was a golem, but that might just be because I tend to slot really easily into the mindset Marge Piercy is trying to create. I'm curious, though, to know if people could read "He, She and It" and still be bothered by the golem (Yod, his name was, right?) being considered a real person? More to the point, I guess, would anyone characterize the reactions to Yod as being caused by his physical resemblance to a human rather than anything else about him? -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Miss Manners is afraid that you have mistaken her for someone who has nothing better to do." --Judith Martin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:51:00 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <199902091443.IAA46044@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:43 AM 2/9/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying (in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill >produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual >cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual >cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty >pathetic excuse). > >Sant. What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO. Jean (retired USAF officer) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:06:03 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: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain From: N Clowder RE: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches [snip] >If Tepper *were* presenting herself as photo realist (or if The Gate >were *about* economics) then the failure to establish a valid >techno-economic model for her world would indeed be a failing. Since >The Gate is not thatkind of book, I am content to assume that the >pilings of the bridge are indeed there, and focus on where Tepper has >so much to offer - on the psychology of power (individual and >collective). But that's just the problem. As Anthea points out (great post, BTW!) Tepper is talking about power but ignoring some of the classic dilemmas of power, i.e. the problems of keeping a heavily armed military under civilian control. Sure, she can do that -- but then the novel takes place in a world full of people who are nicer, less selfish, slower to see and take advantage than the people here on Earth. Take it a little further, and you get all those utopian novels set among hopelessly warm, sensitive folks (those folks used to live in True Communism, then in a world free of the distorting influences of the patriarchy). That damages the novel as a work of art. To put it another way, any fool can write about a castle in the air. A good writer should take it one step further, and figure out how that castle gets its supplies, and where the sewers drain to... Patricia Wrede comes to mind as a fantasy writer who is particularly scrupulous about these things. Of course, I realize a lot of people on this list are NOT coming at these works from an fannish viewpoint, and so maybe they are less sensitive to these issues of plausibility. But any thinking reader will notice these little supporting details on some level. [snip] >With regard to Le Guin and collective violence, it is clear that she >and S.M. Stirling are painting wildly different canvasses - even when >they look at the "same" thing. I have my preference, and I only get >confused by the notion that one is "righter" than the other - as >*works of art*. If you take their art as *models for society*, >however, I can understand better the passion of the arguments flying >back and forth. And that is one of the great roles of art, isn't it? (Why can't one have heated arguments about art?) I don't think anyone was saying that one author is "righter", but some authors are more convincing than others when writing about certain subjects. As has been pointed out, LeGuin is very good when writing about conflicts between intellectuals, something that many SF writers suck at. Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:07:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches In-Reply-To: <19990209170604.8929.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Daniel Krashin wrote: [Tepper, "Gate to Women's Country"] > Sure, she can do that -- but then the novel takes place in a > world full of people who are nicer, less selfish, slower to see and > take advantage than the people here on Earth. Take it a little > further, and you get all those utopian novels set among hopelessly > warm, sensitive folks (those folks used to live in True Communism, > then in a world free of the distorting influences of the patriarchy). > That damages the novel as a work of art. Uhm. Not to give away anything for people who haven't read the book, but it's not as if Tepper doesn't address the "nicer, less selfish, slower to take advantage" aspect of the population of Women's Country. I rather thought that was the point. In general, I thought one of the strengths of both "Women's Country" and (for example) "Raising the Stones" was the way Tepper showed the conflict between these "better people" and people not like them. The women of Women's Country only manage to maintain the balance between them and the barracks by having the Councillors be prepared to be vicious and advantage-taking when necessary. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Cause when you're in the company of strangers Or at least the strangers you call friends You know before you start just how it's going to end --"Hold Me Down", the Gin Blossoms ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:24:53 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: Temporary Adieu. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Well, gotta go -- deadline on a sadly overdue novella far too far behind me, so I've got to cut down on net time for a while. I shall return, and thanks for the interesting discussions. Those who've been sending me private e-mail, feel free to continue. Yours S.M. Stirling ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:45:46 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 The greatest strength of feminist sf is, I believe, the willingness of our authors to experiment with novel alternate lifestyles, sexuality and gender relationships. Not only are these interesting, but as many people have said, they suggest answers for, or at the least new ways of looking at, the problems women face today. It's for that reason that I think an author who sets her "explorations" in an unbelievable world does her readers a disservice because it denies them the chance to extrapolate from the fictional world to the real one. My comments on Le Guin and Tepper's worlds were based on this reasoning. I don't intend to pursue this topic in view of the ire it aroused. My own interests lie in the economics of fictional societies and/or universes. "Fictional economics" is a common recreation among European students, economists and business analysts interested in sf. CJ Cherryh's "Union/Alliance" universe, for example, has been widely analysed and extended because her design for colonisation and interstellar trade is so well thought out and her books are so interestingly complex. For Cherryh fans there's even one simple freeware program called CHDesign which allows one to calculate ship parameters and costs and another called CHView for plotting stars, trade routes and the like. For anyone interested I recommend: http://wwwjessen.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~jakobi/meetpoint/ ***Fatally flawed*** societies are rare in *serious recent* mainstream and feminist sf and are, I believe, in practice restricted to utopian or dystopian works. For anyone interested in a one-gender *well-constructed* world, _Ethan of Athos_ by Lois McMaster Bujold would be pretty hard to beat. Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:54:47 -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: Racial Homogeneity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pamela Bedore wrote: > > Can anyone give me some titles of works where race ceases to be a factor > in identity? I seem to recall shades of grey somewhere... Ursula LeGuin's _Four Ways to Forgiveness_ has people who are grey, but race (and slavery and colonialism) is definitely an issue. Starhawk's _Fifth Sacred Thing_ and Piercy's _WOman on the Edge of TIme_ (if I am remembering it correctly) attempt to portray societies where race has ceased to be a divisive issue. Starhawk's characters honor all their ancestors equally, regardless of their own skin color. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 01:10:19 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bethany Subject: Re: Racial Homogeneity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was also going to suggest Woman on the Edge of Time in response to this question. One interesting thing about this book is that the futuristic society has eliminated race as a form of identity -but cultural distinctions retain. So we see a tribe of native Americans that is composed of people with many different skin colors. Big Yellow Woman wrote: > Pamela Bedore wrote: > > > > Can anyone give me some titles of works where race ceases to be a factor > > in identity? I seem to recall shades of grey somewhere... > > Ursula LeGuin's _Four Ways to Forgiveness_ has people who are grey, but > race (and slavery and colonialism) is definitely an issue. > > Starhawk's _Fifth Sacred Thing_ and Piercy's _WOman on the Edge of TIme_ > (if I am remembering it correctly) attempt to portray societies where > race has ceased to be a divisive issue. Starhawk's characters honor all > their ancestors equally, regardless of their own skin color. > > Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:27:27 -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: war MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since people have been talking about the "war in the trenches" thing, I want to recommend the film (in theatres) Terence Malick's _THe Thin REd Line. Not only is it unbelievably beautiful (along with the violence and gore), it has some deeper religious and philosophical themes and explores the thoughts and motivations of the soldiers. FInd the biggest screen you can and see it (sorry, but it's three hours long- and worth every minute) Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:32:38 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Racial Homogeneity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What about Le Guin's _The Lathe of Heaven_? One of the protagonists 'truse dreams' occurs when he's told by the therapist who has discovered this power to dream some solution to racial prejudice. When he wakes up everyone is grey. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:43:32 -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: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Although I have never written a fan letter, she wrote) I read Ammonite while recovering from having my wisdom teeth out, and even though I was high on codeine, it was wonderful. Strangely, it reminded me a bit of Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead--where the colonists interact/don't interact with the Piggies. Or perhaps it was the codeine. I also admire it because it had a bit of the "adventure classic" quality--"alone in the wilderness, she battles wild horsewomen" (well, not exactly) and so forth--it was at the same time an interrogation of gender norms and a sort of shoot-em-up-less shoot-em-up. Really classic. Even my male housemate who does not interrogate his gender norms (or at least doesn't do any chores...) read it non-stop. Now if I could only _find_ Slow River, I would pay most any sum for it. Cheers, Jane Franklin >>> Nicola Griffith 02/08 2:01 PM >>> Thanks, Susan . I love to hear that I stole your day. Tee hee. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:42:39 -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: out of print books MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI: I just checked and both _THe City, Not Long After_ (Murphy) and _Healer's War_ (scarborough) are out of print :( Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:34:43 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 Jane wrote: > Now if I could only _find_ Slow River, I would pay most any sum for it. > As far as I know, it's available in trade paper in most bookshops. The problem is figuring out where, exactly, they've shelved it. It's a book that sometimes appears in the sf/f section, sometimes in the l/g/b/t section, and sometimes in plain old Fiction. If you can't find it in your local sf/f or lesbian/gay speciality bookshop, or any other independent, try amazon.com, where the discount pretty much offsets the shipping costs. (I know, I know, they're not exactly "independent" sized, but they've been very good to me.) And thanks for your kind words. I'm just about to start Chap.6 of my new novel and I'm at the stage where I look up and think: nothing but dust ahead of me, nothing but dust behind me. Praise is a great incentive at this point. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:03 -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: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 99 13:43:32 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Now if I could only _find_ Slow River, I would pay most any sum for it. It appears to be available from Future Fantasy, an independant F&SF bookstore in Palo Alto, CA. Take a look at: http://futfan.com [note: www.futfan.com DOESN'T work. oops.] They'll ship. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:10:04 -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: Slow River (was nicola griffith) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If you go to either of these two used book sites and you will find numerous copies available by mail order. :) Some are expensive collectibles (Nicola has arrived!), but there are a number of reduced price (8.00 - 11.00 dollars) reading copies. http://www.abebooks.com/ http://www.bibliofind.com/ Or get the royalties to Nicola and buy from the 'usual suspects'. I believe it is readily available in trade paper. donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:16:31 -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: nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeeezus Nicola, myself and at least five more friends here locally hang on your every word. You are the writer for my minds wrestlings, my spirits imaginings, and my hearts yearnings. Can we pool our money to send you a massage therapist, a chef and a adminstrative assistant to make you comfortable whilst you toil away? donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:52:28 -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: women, war, and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Santanico: (in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill >produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual >cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual >cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty >pathetic excuse).> (I tip my hat to Jean who is retired, I only survived 10 years with the USN) To offer some clarification (I still work for the DoD), Personnel policy for the most part is not determined solely by the US Legislature, hence "Dont Ask, Dont Tell' rather than the policy Clinton wanted to establish. There is a coordination between all of the players: executive, legislative, military, but the detailed policy of who is enlisted and how they are managed once in uniform is solely determined by the Men in Uniform and the appointed civilian heads of the services. The fact that women are not in direct combat assignments is because these Uniformed Men did not want us there, not necessarily because of the Legislature. So no elected official can truly pass legislation that would dictate the treatment of uniformed women during their menses. And trust me if someone is doing that it is an nutcase arch conservative politician somewhere, not a uniform. The military cannot exist without women now. They are integral to readiness. Another aspect to consider is that women HAVE already been to war in a big way. Bloody menses and all. During the Iraq war women were taken as POWs, women flew supply flights over combat areas and got shot down, and women got killed by aircraft fire in the "back line" supply camps. (By friendly fire it was ultimately shown) However, the realities are close enough. There has been a serious impact to Navy readiness because of pregnancy that occurs when personnel are deployed. The policy was that after discovery of the pregnancy the woman would be med-flighted off of the ship. Generally no relief was forthcoming since that person was expected to be there for two years. Many a Commanding Officer would like to just not have women on board any ship, or have women sign contracts that they will not get pregnant while deployed without the threat of punishment. Neither of these are particularly 'kind' policies and could not hold up to Inspector General audits on equal treatment within current manning parameters, but the ideas are out there. The Navy will continue to wrestle with how to stay "ready for war" while dealing with the fact that when men/women are deployed together pregnancy does happen. Finally, and most importantly, I spent 10 years in the service and never heard about menstruation. You are a sailor/soldier and the more you become like everyone else the higher you rise and the better your treatment and privilege. (Women even today are a minor percentage of the total force (15-20% overall I believe). I _never_ in 10 years met a woman sailor who made any issue about her period _ever_. And to bring this back to topic....Susan R. Matthews trilogy includes some of the finest renditions of military dynamics and social structures I have ever read - Exchange of Hostages, Prisoner of Conscious and Hour of Judgment. Perhaps try them and learn a bit about what it was like for folks like me and perhaps Colonel 'Jean' also. (I am trusting that you made it that far Jean :) ). offered with peace, I am not a warrior any longer. donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:31:40 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: out of print books MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good sources for out of print books are www.bibliofind.com and www.bookfinder.com which search over a large no of bookdealers catalogues I think they also search various remainder dealers, but if not, I've found www.bookexpress.com very useful, although I really dislike the way they organise their on-line catalogue. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:12:23 -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 >lot on research. SM's description of the trench soldier made me worry that >I had missed something with my characters motivations. Further discussion, >however, has reassured me that my character need not have the same >motivations as SM's trench soldier. > Of course they don't. People are all different and will do things for different reasons. However, my own military experience (noncombat) and that of several of my old friends (combat) suggests to me that women behave pretty similarly to men in combat. A female friend of mine who has combat wounds (but not a Purple Heart, since women are never in combat) from Central America in the 80's has told me enough stories to make me think that the only possible reason a person would keep going back for more of that treatment is extreme esprit de corps. It's not patriotism, although she would probably claim that she is very patriotic, and it isn't love for or awe of the people who give the orders--she hates officers more than she ever hated the people who shot her and killed one of her troops, and she loved her squadmates at that time more than she loves her mother (to use what I hope is colorful hyperbole). Whatever you decide to do with your character, please think about including that hatred of (or at least dislike of and condescension toward) officers. I remember it as being pretty universal, and not confined to any particular branch of the service--or to any particular country. Civilians--and I'm assuming you are one--never seem to realize this facet of military life. It shows up whether the army is volunteer or draft, too.... Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:24:13 -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 Well what do you know. I have in my hand an essay she wrote in 1987 about this very thing. At the time (1969) she wrote LHD, she thought "he" was just more convenient. If she had it to do again, she'd do it differently. The essay is in _Dancing on the Edge of the World_. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* >In a message dated 99-02-07 11:58:47 EST, you write: > ><< 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... >> > I agree with this. She tells us that the race on the planet (sorry-poor >memory here) is both genders and neither genders at one, and that they do not >have pronouns for male and female, then she uses "he" throughout the entire >book to describe them. Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun to >describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. > >Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:34:09 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had a >hard time seeing the protaganist as anything other than a man because LeGuin >always referred to that person as "him", and yet LeGuin told us many times how >different the people on Winter were from what we know here on our world and in >our time. I want it to have been more groundbreaking than it was. > >Tanya Yes--it's interesting to me that Le Guin has stated that readers often have read the Gethenians as "coded" male. And yet literary critics (the ones I've read, at least) usually read them as coded female. The human envoy is male, and the Gethenians are "other," and the only Other we are used to see opposed to a male is, of course, femaleness. One academic writer pointed out the constant color imagery in LHD, which is black/white/red. The black and white are not opposed in a binary fashion, and the red shows up often enough, and is connected to the Gethenians in such a way, that if they should be associated with any gender at all, it's more logically (but not necessarily emtionally!) female. Again, Le Guin addresses this in her essay. She wishes that she had depicted her "menwomen" doing things like rearing children and washing their own clothes, which would have given a more rounded-out view of their mixed-genderedness. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:51:46 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <003e01be5479$d4293940$1e6b9ad1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:12 PM 2/9/99 -0600, Sheryl wrote: >Whatever you decide to do with your character, please think about including >that hatred of (or at least dislike of and condescension toward) officers. >I remember it as being pretty universal, and not confined to any particular >branch of the service--or to any particular country. Civilians--and I'm >assuming you are one--never seem to realize this facet of military life. It >shows up whether the army is volunteer or draft, too.... Actually, I'm proud to say, that is a big part of my character's experience. She hates and distrusts the officers. I'm glad that you feel that aspect is important--it is important to the story and characterization I'm working on, and it's good to know I'm not far off target. :) Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:53:30 -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: nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The >problem is figuring out where, exactly, they've shelved it. It's a book that >sometimes appears in the sf/f section, sometimes in the l/g/b/t section, and >sometimes in plain old Fiction. If you can't find a book in any bookstore, ASK A CLERK! Really! Some of us know where the books are in our stores, and we almost never bite or snicker. The one I work for, btw, puts Slow River in science fiction, but we have The Blue Place in g/l/b.... Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:03:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <199902092250.OAA28430@mail.sdsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:51 PM 2/9/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >At 04:12 PM 2/9/99 -0600, Sheryl wrote: > >>Whatever you decide to do with your character, please think about including >>that hatred of (or at least dislike of and condescension toward) officers. >>I remember it as being pretty universal, and not confined to any particular >>branch of the service--or to any particular country. Civilians--and I'm >>assuming you are one--never seem to realize this facet of military life. It >>shows up whether the army is volunteer or draft, too.... > > >Actually, I'm proud to say, that is a big part of my character's >experience. She hates and distrusts the officers. I'm glad that you feel >that aspect is important--it is important to the story and characterization >I'm working on, and it's good to know I'm not far off target. > >:) Sophia I'm sorry to see that everyone is so hard over on believing that enlisted troops automatically hate officers. In my experience, admittedly not in combat situations, officer and enlisted lines are blurring. Especially as the military goes more and more hi-tech the differences in what officers and enlisted folks do is more a matter of degree than a matter of greater difference. I spent my entire Air Force career in the computer field, and it was quite evident that wrt expertise the enlisted folks were highly trained and respected and appreciated (at least by those of us who understood what they were doing). This is different in the lo-tech arenas (supply and maintenance fields, for instance), where there is a greater difference between the jobs of officers and enlisted. Everyone hates jet jockeys (test pilots who believe they are Gods gift to Earth) tho :-} Oh, I retired as a Major after 20 years in the Air Force including two tours at the Pentagon. I worked in highly classified arenas where we were constantly locked in vaults because of the danger of our computer systems getting hacked. Jean ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:58:18 -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 I spent my entire Air Force career in the computer field, and >it was quite evident that wrt expertise the enlisted folks were highly >trained and respected and appreciated (at least by those of us who >understood what they were doing). This is different in the lo-tech arenas >(supply and maintenance fields, for instance), where there is a greater >difference between the jobs of officers and enlisted. Everyone hates jet >jockeys (test pilots who believe they are Gods gift to Earth) tho :-} Yes, things might be changing. My experience dates from 1982-86, in US Army voice-intercept. Our officers rarely seemed to know anything about intelligence-gathering--odd, since it was their field--and rarely appreciated or understood what it was that we headphone wearing "button monkeys" actually did (I will be fair here and admit that my own knowledge of intel was narrow and confined to voice traffic and Eastern Europe, and theirs was probably much broader). And then it may be different in the Air Force, too. The army is, intentionally and frustratingly, as low-tech as it can be and still effectively, um...deliver ordnance to the target. The officers that I knew or knew of who seemed to really care about their troops tended to get out and become civilians again as soon as they could. I suspect the pressures that came to bear on them to move up ranks sometimes made them callous to other peoples' (that is, the people who had to--figuratively and literally--clean up after them) points of view and/or problems. >Oh, I retired as a Major after 20 years in the Air Force including two >tours at the Pentagon. I worked in highly classified arenas where we were >constantly locked in vaults because of the danger of our computer systems >getting hacked. > >Jean I can sympathise with that. The building I worked in had no windows. We begged and begged for one, since the Germans had one in THEIR building and they did pretty much the same thing we did, intel-wise. Finally our command structure granted us that boon: they installed a great big window that faced 5 feet of empty space and then a concrete wall. We had SO hoped to see a tree.... Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:53:19 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 Donna wrote: > Can we pool our money to send you a massage therapist, a chef and a > adminstrative assistant to make you comfortable whilst you toil > away? Oh ho, yes indeed! And some dancing girls wouldn't go amiss, either . (Tsk tsk, *bad* author!) And Sheryl said: > If you can't find a book in any bookstore, ASK A CLERK! Well, uh, yes. Good point. Why didn't I think of that? (Creeps back to working on novel, embarrassed.) Thanks, everyone, for your support. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:00:13 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: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/9/99 9:20:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, dkrashin@HOTMAIL.COM writes: << utopian novels set among hopelessly warm, sensitive folks >> Sigh. How soon we forget. I can clearly remember when we would go on vacation for a couple of weeks and leave the house unlocked. To lock the house would have been an insult to our neighbors. When I was working as a biologist, I lived in a place called Hermiston (watermelon country!) and no one bothered locking doors. It was a comfortable, kind, friendly community. Sometimes when I read sf I can see that the author has some familiarity with ethnology...and is modeling the people in the story after some known community. One of the reasons I love sf so much is that it encourages a broad view of humanity, and the understanding that the way one has grown up, or the way one lives, is not the only form humanity takes. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:29:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:51 AM 9/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO. > >Jean (retired USAF officer) I was just repeating what I read; apparently, in concentration camps and prisons, the menstrual cycles of the women sometimes do (did) stop. Of course, since I've never actually been to war/prison/a concentration camp, I'm just assuming. You could have chosen a slightly less belligerent manner in which to correct me, however. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:56:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:52 PM 9/02/99 -0500, you wrote: <> Thank you for responding (a little more politely than Jean previously did) and setting things straight; I probably should have stated straight out that I wasn't all that certain about the women/war/menses thing. I don't pretend to know all that much about military procedure regarding female officers (never looked into it, really), but I did put in the "IIRC", which I obviously didn't (the Lois Bujold/Esther Friesner mix-up alone should've tipped people off that, at 3 AM, my memory isn't too crash hot). I just wish I could say something here, just for once, that didn't make at least one person hate my guts...sigh. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:04:32 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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sheryl wrote: <> I wonder if she could or would do a re-write/revision? That would be fascinating to me. Mary-Ellen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:07:24 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: Photo Realism & War in the Trenches Madrone said >>One of the reasons I love sf so much is that it encourages a broad view of humanity, and the understanding that the way one has grown up, or the way one lives, is not the only form humanity takes.<< I would think that's why we all like it, but we forget, or conversely, we want only that fiction which is exactly opposite from our own life. Once I was discussing a POV program from PBS about high school teenagers in a school band. The teenagers seemed so much like my own had been: troubled, growing, playing music, trying to figure out how to get along and where to go from here, and I said so to the group. The response of some was to say that the _documentary_ wasn't realistic enough and didn't show the problem that "real" teenagers had, like the movie Kids did. I imagine there are some kids like the ones in the movie, but I'm pretty sure no one like them was part of the POV discussion group, they wouldn't have lived that long. The fact that a fictional character or situation is much the same or different from the one you're accustomed to shouldn't be criteria for judging it believable. Humans, on this planet, are capable of so many different emotions, attitudes, physical attributes and social connections, I think we should allow that characters in other worlds or other times or alternate universes might be not fit into our ideas of how things must work. Praise to visionaries who can come up with these ideas and create stories around them. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:32:04 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:04 AM 10/02/99 EST, you wrote: >I wonder if she could or would do a re-write/revision? That would be >fascinating to me. It's certainly possible. Dean Koontz recently did an update/revision of his novel "Demon Seed". Of course, it still wasn't very good, but I suppose it's the thought that counts... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:36:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <199902100756.BAA39504@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:56 AM 2/10/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >At 04:52 PM 9/02/99 -0500, you wrote: > ><> > >Thank you for responding (a little more politely than Jean previously did) >and setting things straight; I probably should have stated straight out that >I wasn't all that certain about the women/war/menses thing. I don't pretend >to know all that much about military procedure regarding female officers >(never looked into it, really), but I did put in the "IIRC", which I >obviously didn't (the Lois Bujold/Esther Friesner mix-up alone should've >tipped people off that, at 3 AM, my memory isn't too crash hot). > >I just wish I could say something here, just for once, that didn't make at >least one person hate my guts...sigh. > >Sant. I most certainly don't *hate your guts*. But those of us who have been dealing with sexist men for a very long time do get tired of having to educate men even in a forum defined as feminist. If you don't know about something ASK - don't ASSUME. Sheesh... And how come is it when women take men to task about foolish things they've said, we're immediately branded as extreme in our responses, but men are allowed to be angry and are then merely placated? Answer: patriarchy. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:13:02 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: What If ... A Film about Judith Merril MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >From Science Fiction Weekly 8 February (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html): "Space Plans Merril Special Canada's Space: The Imagination Station plans to air What If...A Film About Judith Merril on Feb. 18 at 8 p.m. ET. As the title suggests, the special tells the story of legendary SF author and editor Judith Merril, who made her debut in 1948 with the short story "That Only A Mother." "What If...A Film About Judith Merril explores science fiction's Golden Age of the forties and fifties, as seen through the eyes of one of its shining stars," according to a Space press release. "La grande dame of science fiction's literary world for over 50 years, Merril pushed the boundaries of science fiction, a genre once primarily dominated by men." " I have obviously no opportunity to watch this film. Perhaps some list member does and would report on it. I'd be very interested. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:19:02 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: Re: What If ... A Film about Judith Merril Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This got me to thinking.. what if someone had made a film or written a bio about James Tiptree (Alice Sheldon) ? Vivian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:21:01 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Female/male ratio in sff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I am in 'Science Fiction Weekly' today. In the letter corner of Science Fiction Weekly a discussion on SF and gender started following a review by Nalo Hopkinson on the Tiptree Award anthology 'Flying Cups and Saucers' (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue90/books.html#fc). In many ways it is a similar discussion to what we already had on this list. It does not yield many new aspects IMO, but it is interesting insofar as the letter writers are not sort of 'preselected' as on this list. In the following I quote quite a length from these letters as far as I found them interesting. I hope you too, otherwise I use up bandwith for nothing. In Issue 91 (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue91/letters.html) Michael Loveland wrote: "There is a sadness to the Tiptree award, a sorrow that a tale still depends on its reception on the person who tells it. Exploring the cosmos contained in books as a lad I could not have cared less if Andre Norton was a woman (Alice Mary Norton) or Carolyn Keene was a bunch of guys chomping cigars over an old Underwood." Then in Issue 92 (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue92/letters.html) it really started with a letter from Tim Rimes: "As for women in SF, in principle I would agree it doesn't matter who writes a story, but since I was raised on Golden Age stuff I can see why it matters a little. I mean some of the stuff back then is blatantly sexist and that statement comes from a fairly anti-feminist guy like me. [...] Pleasingly many of the good women authors write in a Golden Age or even hard SF style.[...] Of course there were also women writing during the Golden Age and some of them were good too. Nevertheless I think some people go too far with this and I'm definitely not a believer in literary affirmative action. I mean, I heard someone say they wouldn't buy another of Gardner Dozois' Year's Best anthology if he didn't start better representing women. How ridiculous! [...] The reality is 70 percent of science fiction stories are written by men. Although many of the best SF works are by women they tend to write fantasy more. That might sound sexist, but the numbers back me up. If you still think I'm just being chauvinist go to Tangent Online, because I assure you I wouldn't have said it if the statistics hadn't forced my hand. I think it is that way because the image of SF is very macho, not because women can't write SF or any such nonsense." To which Nalo Hopkinson responded: "The discussion about how science fiction and fantasy writers break out by gender is a fascinating one. I haven't looked into it and it seems you have, so I'd believe your research. I'd restate the statistics this way: Seventy percent of fantasy writers who get published are women, and 70 percent of science fiction writers who get published are men. It would be interesting to find out what the gender breakdown is of all manuscripts that publishers receive, not just the ones they accept. This is only anecdotal evidence, but when I attended the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop in 1995, there were 10 men and nine women. Most of us wrote both science fiction and fantasy: six of the men and seven of the women, if memory serves. Perhaps more women end up switching to fantasy and more men to science fiction because they figure out that it increases their chances of being published? And I wonder how the transgendered and transsexual writers break out? I don't have the answers, but I'm curious about them, particularly since my name is gender ambiguous in this part of the world. " In Issue 93 (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue93/letters.html) there are letters under the headings 'SF Isn't Just For Guys' and 'Maybe SF Is Just For Guys'. Stephanie M. Kwandrans: "For the guys out there who think that SF is just for guys, think again--if you really want to write/read about rockets and solar sails and space stations, fine, but don't expect me to buy your book/s. If I want to read about these things, I've got a subscription to Scientific American, and if I want to see space stations, I can tune in CNN and NASA-TV, and see a real space station." Steven Chostler: "Perhaps some of the difference lies not just in "macho" pursuits in "golden age" science fiction such as war, battles, more war, conquest, revolution, war, and sometimes war (from E.E. "Doc" Smith through Heinlein and on even to the Star Trek mythos), but in the lure of technology as savior: hard calculations and solid, no-nonsense technical prowess will guarantee our species' future survival and expansion. Fantasy, on the other hand, is magical, intuitive and often romantic: technology is as likely to be the problem as it is the solution. Given the popularity of Defending the Caveman and the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus theories that abound, there must be some resonance in these views with the popular mindset. If this is the case, then it seems perfectly natural that there would be a tendency, whether "genetic" or as a function of "the market," for male writers to drift toward science fiction and female writers toward fantasy. " Issue 94 (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue94/letters.html). 'You Can't Ignore Half Of Humanity' by Elenna Conner: "If you want real, scientific proof of the continuing female domination of SF, just look at the Nielsen results for the Sci-Fi Channel. Just as many women who watch Lifetime (what is called television for women) watch the Sci-Fi Channel (and I'm willing to bet many who watch SF don't watch Lifetime, but that's just a personal observation). [...] Men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus; the sexes are more similar than many would like to believe. Science fiction can become a way to overcome the differences men and women encounter because of the universality of its ideas and messages." 'Forget Labels, Look For Good Writing' by Judy Moffitt: "The point I'm trying to make is that we should be less concerned with the vitriolically attacking the differences between the genres and sexes and more concerned with identifying the good stuff, no matter what SF or fantasy niche it is in or what the gender of the author was." and two more. The letters in the (current) Issue 95 (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue95/letters.html) on that issue are on a more personal note. I think that Tim Rimes in his letter referred to the following editorial by David A. Truesdale in Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent/others/dave02.htm) with lots of numbers. In summary there is approximately a 2 (or 3) to 1 ratio in favor of males with respect to published authors in the SF magazines Analog, Asimov's, F&SF in the last 5 years, which is an improvement to the sixties with a 6-7 to 1 ratio. Truesdale also looked at other SF magazines. There are some magazines with a nearly 1 to 1 ratio (e.g. Northern Fusion, Realms of Fantasy), most are in the 2-3 to 1 range, some are worse and there is one with a reverse ratio (MZB with a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of females). As I do not read these magazines I don't know which of them specialize in fantasy if any, but I wonder where the number of 70% published female fantasy authors comes from. We had the discussion hard vs. soft sf with respect to women writers and readers before on this list but - as far as I know - not on the gender split concerning fantasy/science fiction. What do you think? I own that personally I read fantasy more for escapist motives while in science fiction I expect ideas which challenge my preconceptions. But then, _Black Wine_ was certainly no book to escape reality. In the last year or so I hardly read fantasy but only science fiction, but there was a time I've read nearly only fantasy. But this is anecdotal evidence. Does somebody have numbers on reader split? Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:21:51 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:36 AM 10/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >I most certainly don't *hate your guts*. But those of us who have been >dealing with sexist men for a very long time do get tired of having to >educate men even in a forum defined as feminist. If you don't know about >something ASK - don't ASSUME. Sheesh... And how come is it when women >take men to task about foolish things they've said, we're immediately >branded as extreme in our responses, but men are allowed to be angry and >are then merely placated? Answer: patriarchy. > >Jean Jean, Sorry to throw your theory out of joint, but: I'm a woman. And yes, I do define myself as feminist. As I said, I don't profess to know all about the military, and, since I've never been under that kind of extreme stress, I can only rely on what I've heard. So what was that about "not assuming"? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:40:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <199902101321.HAA31710@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:21 AM 2/10/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >At 06:36 AM 10/02/99 -0600, you wrote: > >>I most certainly don't *hate your guts*. But those of us who have been >>dealing with sexist men for a very long time do get tired of having to >>educate men even in a forum defined as feminist. If you don't know about >>something ASK - don't ASSUME. Sheesh... And how come is it when women >>take men to task about foolish things they've said, we're immediately >>branded as extreme in our responses, but men are allowed to be angry and >>are then merely placated? Answer: patriarchy. >> >>Jean > >Jean, > >Sorry to throw your theory out of joint, but: > >I'm a woman. And yes, I do define myself as feminist. As I said, I don't >profess to know all about the military, and, since I've never been under >that kind of extreme stress, I can only rely on what I've heard. > >So what was that about "not assuming"? > >Sant. Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more egregious, to me, if you are a woman. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:02:22 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:40 AM 10/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more >egregious, to me, if you are a woman. > >Jean Dear Jean, Am I really supposed to care whether or not you or anyone else considers me a feminist? I never asked for your approval. I'm perfectly willing to apologise for my earlier statement - I think everyone here has, at some point, put their foot in their mouth and made a stupid statement by accident, which is what I assure you it was - but I really have to wonder why you're taking such deep offense at an offhand slip of the tongue. Just forget about it. Life's too short, you know? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:14:56 -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: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Plaintive tone) Now don't think I don't ask (and even beg on occasion) It's just that everyone has been out of the darn book (probably bodes very well for you, Nicola) and on the two occassions that I've left my name with a request to be called when it comes in, they haven't. (I've gone back and asked, only to find them OUT ONCE AGAIN) I think this is a Jane's-bad-karma thing rather than a distribution issue, and I'm sure I'll find it eventually. At least it seems to be selling briskly. Or here in Minneapolis it does. Actually, the other thing I was going to mention was the cover of Ammonite, which I quite liked. Also the cover to Brown Girl in the Ring. On the other hand, I got a copy of (I think, was some time ago) the Northern Girl, which had this bare-breasted nymphet on the cover, which did not really add to my feminist feelings about the book. So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to read books if the cover really annoys me, although usually these are books I didn't especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been embarassed by the cover? And among the authors out there, how much control over the covers do you have? From reading Edward Gorey's "Mr. Earbass writes a novel", I have always assumed that it's more a marketing decision than an authorial one. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:19:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <199902101402.IAA17874@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Sant. My last comment on the matter. I have no *deep offense*. I think it was even more stupid if you are a wymn that is all I am saying. Get a grip yourself and let it go. I have. jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:25:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990210073849.009f3330@emeraldcoast.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Majkia wrote: > Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more > egregious, to me, if you are a woman. First point: can someone please send me a copy of the rules for being a feminist thinker? There seems to be some objective standard that I'm unaware of, and I'd like to be filled in. Second point: yes, that was sarcastic. Third point, seriously this time: Why are you the arbiter of what is and is not feminist thinking? There isn't any one definition of "feminist" or "feminism", and I think that drawing these kinds of lines, saying "I'm a -real- feminist and you're not", that's just destructive and isn't going to get us anywhere we want to go. The kind of statement you made above makes me -extremely- uncomfortable, especially in a setting like this. There's a valid argument to be made that on a mailing list about feminist science fiction we shouldn't have to continually reinvent basic principles of feminism. But I think there's also a point at which we have to ask ourselves, what kind of goals are we furthering by being outright mean? -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Lord is my shepherd, so cloning will allow me to clone Him some more sheep to keep him busy while I'm off sinning." --Willy Jay ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:27:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:19 AM 10/02/99 -0600, you wrote: > Dear Sant. > >My last comment on the matter. I have no *deep offense*. I think it was >even more stupid if you are a wymn that is all I am saying. Get a grip >yourself and let it go. I have. If there's no deep offense, why are you behaving so offensively in turn? As for being a "wymn", I have no idea what the hell _that_ is. If you mean "woman", call a spade a spade. And nice attempt to turn it around so it looks as though I'm the one obsessed with this. After all, you were the one who decided to send along a rude response rather than let a mistake slide. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:33:05 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <008101be5476$9a120960$c5b21b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Donna, to show my age: When I joined the air force, wymn were not in the REAL Air Force - neither were wymn who were in the Army and Navy and Marines. We were an auxiliary. During the first months of my training, tho, that changed and the air force (the first service to do this) integrated wymn into the service as full-fledged members of the military. I was not, however, ever allowed to shoot a gun (this was during the Vietnam war). We were instructed that the men would protect us (yeah, right) so we didn't need to learn about shooting. Instead we were given instructions on putting on makeup and using wigs so we always looked our best in uniform (ugh - I'd forgotten how stupid this whole OTS thing was). Also, at that time, if wymn got pregnant, they were automatically thrown out of the military. No ifs ands or buts. And marriage might automatically mean discharge too, depending (they were sort of allowing active duty marriages but were skeptical if a wymn married a civilian). We were not allowed to be in certain career fields and these were far beyond the ones associated with direct fighting. we weren't even allowed in the supply field because they went into enemy territory some times. And wymn, of course, were not allowed to fly - at all. It wasn't until the 70s the Air Force began allowing wymn to fly cargo planes, and not until late 80s that wymn were finally allowed into bombers and fighters. Just for ya'lls edification and delight. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:42:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I know you won't miss miss me since I've mainly been lurking but I'm going to unsubcribe. I would like to say that a major reason I've been a lurker rather than a participant is because of this kind of interchange. As I read it, Sant. passed on something she heard, she did NOT say that she agreed with it. She was immediately jumped on and challenged. Call me a wimp, but I joined this list for fun/education/illumination not for confrontation. I've been reluctant to post since I do not want to be involved in this kind of exchange. This is not a welcoming place. Sheryl > ---------- > From: Majkia[SMTP:majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 9:19 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] women, war, and feminist sf > > Dear Sant. > > My last comment on the matter. I have no *deep offense*. I think it was > even more stupid if you are a wymn that is all I am saying. Get a grip > yourself and let it go. I have. > > jean > em hotep > > Majkia ICQ #722007 > > Visit The Portals of Majkia at > http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia > > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* > "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction > between > past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - > Albert Einstein > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:46:41 -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: nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to read books if the cover really annoys me, although usually these are books I didn't especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been embarassed by the cover? I think it's a fact that there're some =really= embarassing covers out there, and I know of one author who literally got down on her knees and BEGGED the artist not to make her book look like some kind of barbarian breast-fest. On the other hand, there are some wonderful ones. Nalo got a -great- cover. > And among the authors out there, how much control over the covers do you have? From reading Edward Gorey's "Mr. Earbass writes a novel", I have always assumed that it's more a marketing decision than an authorial one. I feel outstandingly lucky to say that that I had a tremendous amount of input for the cover for -The Annunciate-, which comes out in November. I have an art background, so when my editor said, "send me a sketch" I could. I just saw the preliminary proofs a couple of weeks ago, and most everything I wanted was there. This is really, really rare (I have a great editor), and the only other person I can think of who does her own covers (and I might have the name wrong) is Janni Lee Jones, who writes and paints. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:44:25 -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: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It's funny, I'm also on a list for the Left Business Observer and there's just been almost exactly this argument, over who decides what should be the appropriate Marxist way to talk about abortion (do we need a theoretical base rooted in, say, Capital, or do we just say that Marx's theories are about respect for individual agency and that's all the theory we need) and it somehow degenerated into exactly this thing: "who says you get to decide how I talk?" This just seems to be a peril of email lists, when one can't see facial expression or really reply exactly when one would like. A lot of these seem like false debates to me--that is, things that would be resolved really really briefly if we all sat down and had some tea. Tea, anyone? >>> gingembre 02/10 8:25 AM >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Majkia wrote: > Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more > egregious, to me, if you are a woman. First point: can someone please send me a copy of the rules for being a feminist thinker? There seems to be some objective standard that I'm unaware of, and I'd like to be filled in. Second point: yes, that was sarcastic. Third point, seriously this time: Why are you the arbiter of what is and is not feminist thinking? There isn't any one definition of "feminist" or "feminism", and I think that drawing these kinds of lines, saying "I'm a -real- feminist and you're not", that's just destructive and isn't going to get us anywhere we want to go. The kind of statement you made above makes me -extremely- uncomfortable, especially in a setting like this. There's a valid argument to be made that on a mailing list about feminist science fiction we shouldn't have to continually reinvent basic principles of feminism. But I think there's also a point at which we have to ask ourselves, what kind of goals are we furthering by being outright mean? -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Lord is my shepherd, so cloning will allow me to clone Him some more sheep to keep him busy while I'm off sinning." --Willy Jay ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:58:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:46 AM 10/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >> So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to read books if the cover really annoys me, although usually these are books I didn't especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been embarassed by the cover? Many times. The problem, I think, is that, since SF/F is usually regarded by the public as "not really literature", the cover artists often share this view and just put any crap they can dig up on the cover, usually, it seems, to the mortification of the authors. Some covers are wonderful - Tanith Lee's "Vivia" has a lovely classical painting of Sappho on the cover (though I wasn't all that fond of the novel itself, it must be said - Vivia, ostensibly the heroine, was just such a completely unlikeable character from beginning to end) - but others: erk! I mean, really: WHO decided to give Lois MacMaster Bujold's "The Warrior's Apprentice" such a silly-looking cover? A big spaceship, some guy I assume is Miles Vorkosigan staring blankly into the stratosphere, and another guy below him I could swear was Ming the Merciless. All I can say is, poor Lois. Imagine putting all that work into a well-written, thoughtful novel, and it gets packaged as just another trashy pulp SF book. Sometimes I think publishers don't _want_ their good SF authors to sell. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:19:38 -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: women, war, and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- >>something ASK - don't ASSUME. Sheesh... And how come is it when women >>take men to task about foolish things they've said, we're immediately >>branded as extreme in our responses, but men are allowed to be angry and >>are then merely placated? Answer: patriarchy. >Jean, > >Sorry to throw your theory out of joint, but: > >I'm a woman. And yes, I do define myself as feminist. As I said, I don't >profess to know all about the military, and, since I've never been under >that kind of extreme stress, I can only rely on what I've heard. >> >Sant. May I add just a tiny little two-cents here? I was surprised to see the original remark called "sexist." My period stopped completely while I was in Basic Training, which was harder then than it is now (that's a mandatory military disclaimer. We all have to sign a form stating that we will ALWAYS deride the youngsters who think THEY have it tough. ;-) ). And I also have to admit that I did know women who tried to get out of doing hard physical work by claiming that their cramps prevented it. Only one or two of those women, and they didn't last very long (married and got out of the service), but they ARE out there. I wish they weren't, but they are. Not by any means a majority or representative sample, of course. The thing is, we aren't any more perfect than the men are. As a general rule we are better at most things---especially in the military, where if we aren't shit-hot we are considered a serious life-threatening liability--but not all women see themselves as representatives of their gender. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:35:34 -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: nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >At 09:46 AM 10/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >>> So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? >How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to read books if >the cover really annoys me, although usually these are books I didn't >especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been embarassed by the cover? > I haven't yet decided whether David Weber's Honor Harrington series is "feminist." I've been ruined by taking a Theories of Feminism class and find that many things that I thought were feminist are apparently not thought so by those who retain the rights to decide. But anyway, I just ran through that series as fast as I could. And the covers?? Horrible. Honor Harrington is a starship captain, for God's sakes, and she is described many times by the author as a dark-haired descendant of Earth's Asians (and whose hair, for the first two or three books, is cut extremely short)--but guess what she looks like on the books' covers? Blonde, caucasian, way too much makeup, huge wazoongas....I often wanted to hide the covers while I was reading those. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:06:19 -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: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On mature reflection, I think that some of my favorite covers are the late sixties Lord of the Rings ones, the sort of psychedelic/Scandinavian ones. (I actually have three editions of LOTR, only one of which I actually read...the others are backup) I really liked the hardcover Black Wine, and, perversely enough, the cover to evil satanic Snowcrash. On the other hand, every edition of Russ I've ever seen has been rather blah, and I am refusing to read Idoru on the cover principal. And speaking of books one dislikes on impact, so to speak--while hunting for some books to read during the wisdom teeth, I happened on a book (title, author all forgotten) whose back cover ran something like: "Male protagonist had never been one for relationships, but he found himself falling for one of the slender delicate creatures grown for humans for recreational, sexual, and experimental uses...this brought him into a maelstrom of blah blah blah..." Gee, like it would be too much to imagine him falling for a real woman, or just one whose tininess did not need to be emphasized on the back cover. Admittedly, this may be a fine book; I assume that back cover writers don't always do what the authors want either. Plus the book had one of those semi-Asian faces drawn for the love doll...there is a really weird kind of fascination with Asian women among certain male sf writers. Another category one could consider would be good books with awful covers--like those DAW early Tanith Lee books (Delirium's Mistress, and especially Delirium's Master) or the TOR editions of Book of the New Sun....I actually once tried to explain the books to a bookstore clerk because the mere fact of buying them embarassed me so, even though I had been looking for them for ages. Which explanation just made me look sillier of course. >>> Suzanne Feldman 02/10 8:46 AM >>> > So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to read books if the cover really annoys me, although usually these are books I didn't especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been embarassed by the cover? I think it's a fact that there're some =really= embarassing covers out there, and I know of one author who literally got down on her knees and BEGGED the artist not to make her book look like some kind of barbarian breast-fest. On the other hand, there are some wonderful ones. Nalo got a -great- cover. > And among the authors out there, how much control over the covers do you have? From reading Edward Gorey's "Mr. Earbass writes a novel", I have always assumed that it's more a marketing decision than an authorial one. I feel outstandingly lucky to say that that I had a tremendous amount of input for the cover for -The Annunciate-, which comes out in November. I have an art background, so when my editor said, "send me a sketch" I could. I just saw the preliminary proofs a couple of weeks ago, and most everything I wanted was there. This is really, really rare (I have a great editor), and the only other person I can think of who does her own covers (and I might have the name wrong) is Janni Lee Jones, who writes and paints. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:16:29 -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: Female/male ratio in sff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra, Thanks for sharing those letters, the exchange was very interesting. One thing that struck me about it was the "it doesn't matter who writes a story as long as it's good" opinion. Seems a little too reminiscent of the "view from nowhere" -- I mean the idea that one can just be "objective", and that's the ideal state from which to express oneself. Postmodernity, whether you like it or not, has effectively demolished the myth that you can put aside all your particularities and just write the "truth", or some such bullshit. Of course it matters who the author is. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:29:42 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: SF art covers (wasRe: nicola griffith) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I was just reading some of the posts on this subject and was wondering if any authors who had some artistic ability were 'allowed' to do the cover art for their own books. I recall the hardcover version of Gibran's _The Prophet_ which featured cover art and illustrations inside by Gibran himself. Vivian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:52:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: Re: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: <007401be5513$635f92a0$8f689ad1@default> from "Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage" at Feb 10, 99 10:35:34 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sheryl sez: [snip] > thought so by those who retain the rights to decide. But anyway, I just ran > through that series as fast as I could. And the covers?? Horrible. Honor > Harrington is a starship captain, for God's sakes, and she is described many > times by the author as a dark-haired descendant of Earth's Asians (and whose > hair, for the first two or three books, is cut extremely short)--but guess > what she looks like on the books' covers? Blonde, caucasian, way too much > makeup, huge wazoongas....I often wanted to hide the covers while I was > reading those. > Hmmm. I wonder what editions you have? I just started on the series and all of the paperbacks I have, all from Baen I think, show Honor with dark hair, which is short on most of the covers. They also show her in poses at the center of the action. My copy of _The Honor of the Queen_ shows her looking over a star map with two of her male officers. Caroline ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:48:29 -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: Re: Left Hand of Darkness and Pronouns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Syela Shratdeshm wrote: > I would note that LHoD is told in the first person. > Genly Ai comes from a society with 1950's sex roles, including > the division of labor. He is the sort of person who would > consider "he" to be appropriate for "any person whose sex is > not specified" (as my dictionary alleges), and who would > translate a genderless third-person pronoun as "he". Only parts of the novel are told from Genly Ai's point of view. Of the remaining, some are reports from other Hainish researchers, some are retellings of Gethenian folktales and myths, and some are Estraven's thoughts and journal entries. Leaving aside Ai for the moment, why does the rest of the book use masculine pronouns also? As far as point of view goes, it doesn't make any sense that Estraven would borrow Ai's masculine pronouns, or even that the Hainish would translate into masculine pronouns instead of adopting the pronouns the Gethenians use for themselves. Unless the Hainish are indeed "a society with 1950s sex roles", which would cause a whole lot of plausibility issues (we're talking about a galaxy-spanning confederation that has the power of telepathy) as well as not being supported by the text. When Ai speaks of the differences between men and women (p. 223 in my edition), he is giving an overview of all the societies that are part of the Ekumen, some more gender equalized than others. The contact team itself appears to be completely gender-equal (one of the research entries, "The Question of Sex", is written by a woman and the first person off the lander at the end is a woman). The generic masculine simply doesn't fit, and Le Guin admits as much today. As far as Ai's individual thoughts on gender... he certainly didn't come across to me as a sexist barbarian. I think Le Guin intended his musings on gender to represent the thoughts anyone from a dual-sexed society might have when faced with the Gethenians. I believe she fell short in not considering that two-sexed does not necessarily mean two-gendered. But I still love the book. > 36 degrees writes: > >i haven't actually read the work in question, but i have read some > >essays by leguin & in one of them she says that she regrets her > >treatment of the pronoun there... I have the 25th anniversary edition of *The Left Hand of Darkness*, which includes an essay by Le Guin as well as some reworkings of passages of the book with a) an invented neuter pronoun; b) feminine pronouns; c) neuter pronouns that change to gendered pronouns when Gethenians come into kemmer; d) masculine pronouns that change to female pronouns when a Gethenian comes into (female) kemmer. I find that options b and d really grate on me (d reinforces even more strongly than across-the-board masculine pronouns the defaultness of the male sex). The other two I can't really tell from the original since the maleness of the characters is so imprinted on my brain that a change to an invented pronoun has no effect. It may work for someone who had never read the book before, though. > I can see practical reasons to use "he" in LHoD. > In retrospect, it would be nice if the book had influenced readers > to look at things a different way, but I doubt that it would have > been as influential or as widely read with another default pronoun. I agree. Sigh. -- 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 "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:49:49 -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: Generations of SF writers/reply to Mike Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Santanico wrote: > Interesting that you should mention this; I recently found a website > that, in part, devotes itself to reviving interest in (and book sales > for) forgotten feminist-themed SF/F authors of earlier days, such as > Marie Corelli, Olivia Howard Dunbar and Sarah Orne Jewett. It's run by > an author called Jessica Amanda Salmonson, and while it's not entirely > devoted to female authors of the period (it's basically just for all > old, forgotten SF/F books and authors), I'd say that theme occupies > about 95% of the site. It can be found at: > > http://www.violetbooks.com/ Cool! Thanks for the link, Santanico. Salmonson edited an anthology of short stories called *What Did Miss Darrington See?*, which contains work by some of the authors you mention. I read it back in the summer of 1989 when I REALLY needed some feminist speculative fiction to keep me sane. As well as older, obscure authors, it includes work by some newer writers. The final story in the volume is "The Little Dirty Girl" by Joanna Russ, perhaps the first Russ I ever read. Different generation or no (I turned 20 that summer), that story made me cry! -- 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 "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:20:53 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: What If ... A Film about Judith Merril In-Reply-To: <199902101313.OAA18066@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 10/02/99 14:13:02 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Petra Mayerhofer , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Canada's Space: The Imagination Station plans to air What If...A Film > About Judith Merril on Feb. 18 at 8 p.m. ET. Please, please, please, could somebdy tape it for me? I'll worry about converting it to PAL format when I get it. I would be eternally grateful. I last saw Judy 30 years ago, almost to the day, just before I returned to England. I had been helping her and her son (who's name escapes me) sort her book collection. Honest, I was. Admittedly I spent more time sat in a corner reading or pestering her with questions than I did sorting, but I was _some_ help. And hers was some collection. I've often regretted my failure to keep in touch, I'd love to find out more about her. My memories of her are precious but fading. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there to hear it, is he still wrong? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:05:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Cover Art (was:Re nicola griffith) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Jane Franklin wrote: > So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've > seen? How important is the cover to you? (I occasionally refuse to > read books if the cover really annoys me, although usually these are > books I didn't especially want to read) Ever bought a book and been > embarassed by the cover? One of the best covers I have seen is the beautiful black on black design for the trade paperback edition of *Black Wine*. It has a lovely tactile quality to it that is very appealing. I have to admit, though, that I like the cheesy covers on some books. The cover of *Guilty Pleasures* by Laurell K. Hamilton has a little red banner across the top that reads "Anita Blake Vampire Hunter" and I just couldn't resist picking it up to read the back. I've been a fan ever since and have been on the LKH e-mail list for about a year now. I don't like covers that show stationary objects, like floating space stations for example, especially if there are no people or other living beings to give a little animation to the picture. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:10:48 -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: war In-Reply-To: <36C09A2F.585@people-link.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > Since people have been talking about the "war in the trenches" thing, I > want to recommend the film (in theatres) Terence Malick's _THe Thin REd > Line. Not only is it unbelievably beautiful (along with the violence and > gore), it has some deeper religious and philosophical themes and > explores the thoughts and motivations of the soldiers. FInd the biggest > screen you can and see it (sorry, but it's three hours long- and worth > every minute) I agree!!! The narrative takes a little getting used to but once you get over the uncomfortable feeling of being inside the characters thoughts, it starts to really work. Beautiful, horrible movie. I recommend it. > Susan > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:14:30 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: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/10/99 6:34:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM writes: << Instead we were given instructions on putting on makeup and using wigs s >> (speechless) Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:15:35 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Book covers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Jane wrote: > So on that note, what are the good and the bad among covers you've seen? How > important is the cover to you? > From reading Edward Gorey's "Mr. Earbass writes a novel", I have > always assumed that it's more a marketing decision than an authorial one. Speaking purely from my own experience, the author has some input on the cover but absolutely no control. The cover of the first US edition of AMMONITE was awful: bright orange and yellow and red with this jellybean spaceship plump in the middle. Ack. I kicked up a real stink, forwarded to the publisher all my emails from readers who wrote and told they almost hadn't picked up the book, that they'd bought the book *despite* the cover, not because of it, etc. etc., and when the book won some awards and got reprinted, it got the nice cover it has now--which is what I'd asked for in the first place. Tuh. SLOW RIVER, on the other hand, is a fabulous cover, and although it was not what I asked for (I wanted something non-representational) it's better than I dreamed. Ten on ten, gold star: eye-catching, attractive, everything to do with the book. THE BLUE PLACE cover, on the other hand, is, well, not very good at its job. It's too dark, for one thing, potential buyers can't see it from across the aisle; the woman on the cover doesn't look like Aud (lots of readers want to know a) if it's me, and b) if it's not me, if I have the model's phone number--from this I deduce that some readers believe I hang out with young gorgeous models, that they lounge on my sofas and I take casual pictures of them to go on my books...); I suspect that a whole section of potential readers have been put off by the deliberate attitude of the cover. However, it could all have been much, much worse. AMMONITE, for example, could have had one of those bronze bra'ed babes on the cover, with a lurid "Sex romp on girly planet!" blurb under the title. SLOW RIVER could have been very grim looking: a sewage plant in an industrial city with "a serious examination of sewage and abuse issues in northern industrial towns" as a subtitle. THE BLUE PLACE could have been a Misery-type cover, big woman with mad grin and axe, and subtitled "Scandinavia sexpot goes psycho" or something . I think marketing departments have a really, really hard time with my books because they don't fit into traditional moulds. Most covers speak in code. There's very little code that would be appropriate to my work; it confuses the art department, and sales and marketing. The best covers, I think, are arresting yet not too different from others in their genre. The reader then knows what s/he is getting, which is part of the point. Covers are very important; they're what a) gets the book reviewed (true story: my latest novel got at least two of its big reviews (Washington Post and Voice Literary Supplement) because the reviews editor liked the cover) b) what prompts the reader to pick it up in the bookshop and browse through it. Which is probably more than you wanted to know.... Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:02:36 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: Book covers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/10/99 8:18:56 PM, Nicola wrote: <> Not a bit! Glad to know it all. Speaking of yukky covers -- I really don't care for the one on The Female Man. I would not have bought it. LOVED the cover on The Golden Key. And Slow River is wonderful... best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:50:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: heather Subject: Re: Left Hand of Darkness and Pronouns In-Reply-To: <36C1C66D.A1409DFB@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" LeGuin has written a screenplay of LHD which I pray will be published and filmed someday (I heard her express a wish for Michael Dorn to play Genly). She said she was able to rework most situations so that pronouns are avoided when possible and gendered pronouns are used as appropriate for people in kemmer. You can read this in practice in "Coming of Age in Karhide," a short story published in the _New Legends_ anthology, edited by Greg Bear in 1996. Not to be confused with 1998's _Legends_, which has a new Earthsea story ("Dragonfly" I think is the title). Heather, hoping for another collection of UKL short stories, she's written lots more since Fisherman of the Inland Sea & Four Ways to Forgiveness. ........................................................... heather / \ kebbo@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:14:42 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Judith Merril Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In about 1950, "Cyril Judd" wrote a book called _Gunner Cade_. When I read the book in 1978 I seem to remember that the copyright statement on verso of the title page showed the book was written by C M Kornbluth and Judith Merril - implying that "Cyril Judd" was the combined pen-name of these two authors. Can anyone confirm this? A bottle of Chilean Merlot - which the loser has to drink - is at stake. I don't recall the work as being at all feminist but a very good "Boy's Own" type of story about a futuristic Military Order (rather like the Knights Templar or Hospitaller). Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ______________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:26:47 -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: Judith Merril In-Reply-To: <80256715.0012CBE6.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:14 AM 2/11/99 +0000, Mike Stanton wrote: >In about 1950, "Cyril Judd" wrote a book called _Gunner Cade_. When I read >the book in 1978 I seem to remember that the copyright statement on verso >of the title page showed the book was written by C M Kornbluth and Judith >Merril - implying that "Cyril Judd" was the combined pen-name of these two >authors. > >Can anyone confirm this? A bottle of Chilean Merlot - which the loser has >to drink - is at stake. I don't recall the work as being at all feminist >but a very good "Boy's Own" type of story about a futuristic Military Order >(rather like the Knights Templar or Hospitaller). C.M. Kornbluth and Judith Merril, writing under the pseudonym of "Cyril Judd", were indeed the co-authors of *Gunner Cade* as well as *Outpost Mars*. So who has to drink the wine? Can I have some? (It's true, I have no taste when it comes to wine.) ----- 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, 11 Feb 1999 04:34:59 +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: war Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I agree!!! The narrative [ of _The Thin Red Line_] takes a little > getting used to but once you get over the uncomfortable feeling of > being inside the characters thoughts, it starts to really work. > Beautiful, horrible movie. I recommend it. Some one mentioned that the face of war was changing from the horrible picture that Steve Stirling painted to something else which I got the feeling was supposed to be more humane. Many people have the impression that future wars will be like "Desert Storm". A powerful, well-equipped force of Western soldiers use high-tech weaponry to smash an out-numbered, poorly-led, untrained, low-morale enemy while taking minimal casualties - in fact exactly what the American public in 1963 were led to believe Vietnam would be like. Almost all European military observers see it differently. Rather than _Desert Storm_, they see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Beirut, Bosnia, Chechnya and Somalia as far more likely models. In all except the fourth, a bunch of ragtag, fanatical guerillas sent a large well-equipped force scuttling. I myself - as a journalist on the sidelines - saw Afghanistan 2 years after the Russians pulled out, and Bosnia and Chechnya at their height; I think that Steve's description was the closest to the real thing that's been mentioned on this list. The death and killing in both _Saving Private Ryan_ and _The Thin Red Line_ has been sanitized. Three deservedly minor, but very disturbing films - _Hamburger Hill_, _The Beast of War_ & _Saviour_ - show the face of war as I saw it. The oversentimentalized theme of _Saviour_ isn't that far from the truth because I heard of analogous things in Bosnia. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster,co.uk) ___________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:55:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Honor Harrington feminist? was Re: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: <007401be5513$635f92a0$8f689ad1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:35 AM 2/10/99 -0600, Sheryl wrote: >I haven't yet decided whether David Weber's Honor Harrington series is >"feminist." I've been ruined by taking a Theories of Feminism class and >find that many things that I thought were feminist are apparently not >thought so by those who retain the rights to decide. But anyway, I just ran >through that series as fast as I could. And the covers?? Horrible. Honor >Harrington is a starship captain, for God's sakes, and she is described many >times by the author as a dark-haired descendant of Earth's Asians (and whose >hair, for the first two or three books, is cut extremely short)--but guess >what she looks like on the books' covers? Blonde, caucasian, way too much >makeup, huge wazoongas....I often wanted to hide the covers while I was >reading those. > >Sheryl So I gather that you rampaged through the series despite the admittedly basically horrible covers (although the last three covers (not counting the anthologies) are less icky even if not terribly accurate to the text IMHO)? You don't have to apologize to me for liking this particular dose of mind candy. Sometimes it's just *fun* to read and enjoy something without dissecting it to death for adherence to various feminist theories. Heck, the folks I hang out with in the alt.books.david-weber newsgroup are busy dissecting the technology, hunting for typos, and speculating on future events besides ranting about the cover art. Of course, some of my other net friends and I could probably attempt some theoretical discussions of Honor and if her saga is feminist. (Note to Anny Middon: if you're lurking, this one's for you!) Don't get me started on my LaToya Harrington rant about the cover of Field of Dishonor, it's the most spew inducing one of the main series and is only equaled in grossness by the cover of the latest anthology which not only has something that is supposed to be a treecat (NOT!) but even more execrably misspelled Jane Lindskold's name as "Jan". I managed to froth on the Baen books discussion board about that faux pas, and Jim Baen says the person responsible lost hir job. Hopefully, this caused Jim some torment as well :). I devour the new releases of Weber and Lois Bujold despite the worst best efforts of the Baen art department. Thank Goddess that the best way to envision books is within the confines of your own mind. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:37:30 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barclay Blanchard Subject: OT: Nuremberg files Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I apologize in advance for posting off topic. I found out yesterday that my dad's name is on that atrocious website that lists abortion clinic staff and other helpers and then crosses the names off when the people are killed or injured. He's a sociologist who writes books about abortion clinic violence and testifies against the terrorists at trials. Here's where the new site is: http://www.freespeech.org/riverpup/files.html Please tell you feminist friends about this atrocious site. How can those people consider abortionists to be butchers and not see themselves as terrorists/butchers? How can they use religion to justify killing? They belong in the Dark Ages. (BTW I'm a woman.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:00:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: What If ... A Film about Judith Merril In-Reply-To: <36C1CE05186.0252CATWEASEL@send.mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:20 PM 2/10/99 GMT, Catweasel wrote: >I last saw Judy 30 years ago, almost to the day, just before I returned >to England. I had been helping her and her son (who's name escapes me) >sort her book collection. Honest, I was. Admittedly I spent more time >sat in a corner reading or pestering her with questions than I did >sorting, but I was _some_ help. And hers was some collection. > >I've often regretted my failure to keep in touch, I'd love to find out >more about her. My memories of her are precious but fading. I only was able to meet Judy twice, neither time intimately, but she was GoH at WisCon 20, and they videotaped the highlights of the whole con. I urge anyone remotely interested to talk to SF3 in Madison. At that time, she was writing her memoirs; I haven't heard how much was publishable by the time of her death, but pray it's substantial. I hadn't known that her mother was one of the founders of Hadassah(!!). One of the bits she read was about her affair with Theodore Sturgeon, who goaded her to finally write science fiction after she'd been writing on other pulp genres already. I miss her, too. Neil Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:05:58 +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: Judith Merril Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 10 Feb 99, at 23:26, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > C.M. Kornbluth and Judith Merril, writing under the > pseudonym of "Cyril Judd", were indeed the co-authors > of *Gunner Cade* as well as *Outpost Mars*. > > So who has to drink the wine? Can I have some? (It's > true, I have no taste when it comes to wine.) Thanks, Janice. I took such flak about it on the plane on Monday, I thought my memory was playing tricks. Still "he laughs best who laughs last". Only a masochist would taste this plonk voluntarily. Most South American wine is barely drinkable (and then only if you swallow it quickly to avoid tooth rot) but this stuff is baaaad! Anthea will be taking her first glass when I get home on the 26th. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _____________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:54:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: OT: Nuremberg files MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could you please check the URL? I keep getting a message about 'incorrect address'. thanks. m.hable Barclay Blanchard wrote: > I apologize in advance for posting off topic. > > I found out yesterday that my dad's name is on that atrocious > website that lists abortion clinic staff and other helpers and > then crosses the names off when the people are killed or > injured. He's a sociologist who writes books about abortion > clinic violence and testifies against the terrorists at trials. > Here's where the new site is: > http://www.freespeech.org/riverpup/files.html > > Please tell you feminist friends about this atrocious site. > How can those people consider abortionists to be butchers > and not see themselves as terrorists/butchers? How can > they use religion to justify killing? They belong in the Dark > Ages. > > (BTW I'm a woman.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:52:05 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Seren Subject: Re: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990209104748.009deee0@emeraldcoast.com> from "Majkia" at Feb 9, 99 10:51:00 am Content-Type: text Jean wrote: >Santanico wrote: > (in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill > >produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual > >cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual > >cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty > >pathetic excuse). > > > >Sant. > > What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO. > Jean, what is sexist or non-feminist about saying that menstrual periods often stop during times of stress? Or was it something *else* you were reacting to? It wasn't clear to me from the rest of the thread what you were reacting to. I have read that periods can often be delayed or temporarily stopped by stress in many sex-education guides. I know that my own periods are sometimes late when I am stressed, or in ill-health. I also know that being underweight can stop menses. I am told that athletes who are training intensely sometimes stop ovulating for a little while, but I don't have actual personal proof of this last bit - I do for the others. So I don't see what the problem is with what Santanico said - could you tell me what I'm missing here, because I genuinely don't see what is sexist or indeed non-feminist about the excerpt you quoted, except of course for the idea that Santanico was disagreeing with - i.e. that women shouldn't go to war because of their periods. seren, rather puzzled. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:35:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <199902101952.TAA02607@yon-net.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:52 PM 2/10/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >I have read that periods can often be delayed or temporarily >stopped by stress in many sex-education guides. I know that my own >periods are sometimes late when I am stressed, or in ill-health. I also >know that being underweight can stop menses. I am told that athletes >who are training intensely sometimes stop ovulating for a little while, >but I don't have actual personal proof of this last bit - I do for the others. > >So I don't see what the problem is with what Santanico said - could you >tell me what I'm missing here, because I genuinely don't see what is >sexist or indeed non-feminist about the excerpt you quoted, except of >course for the idea that Santanico was disagreeing with - i.e. that women >shouldn't go to war because of their periods. > >seren, rather puzzled. This issue has been used for decades to convince folks that women are somehow physically and mentally incapable of doing certain kinds of jobs. Just because periods may be affected by stress is not the point. The unstated point in this argument is that our hormones control us and we are therefore unable to control ourselves during menses (PMS dontyaknow). Think about this argument. How much stress are we talking about? Women police officers, for instance, are under far more stress than women in the military. 90% of military members (of either sex) are not on the front lines of any conflict. And even when they are on the front lines, the majority of the time is waiting and wondering not actual fighting. Police officers, OTOH, are on the front lines facing possible death with every car they stop or every dark street they enter. Perhaps you should as women police officers if stress makes their periods disappear? It is extremely personal for me because I lived with this shit for 20 years in the military. I was challenged continuously by sexists, both male and female. Perhaps I over-reacted. I don't think so, tho, since my knowledge of this sort of gender warfare within the service gives me actual experience in how this is used to undermine advances women have made in the military. Even today, the Congress continues to have hearings about rethinking women in the military. The radical right wants to end the use of women in the military - totally oblivious to the fact that today the military cannot function without women. There is NOTHING about periods, how or when they occur, that impacts women's ability to defend their country. Sexual harassment in the military is still rampant, and this is one of the tools those who hate us there use to undermine us. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:03:26 -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: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Feb 99 12:35:21 CST." <4.2.0.24.19990211122231.009beaf0@emeraldcoast.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >This issue has been used for decades to convince folks that women are >somehow physically and mentally incapable of doing certain kinds of >jobs. Just because periods may be affected by stress is not the >point. The unstated point in this argument is that our hormones control us >and we are therefore unable to control ourselves during menses (PMS >dontyaknow). Maybe I missed something here, but I thought Santanico was saying almost the exact opposite of what you're objecting to. Her post was: >(in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill >produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual >cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual >cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty >pathetic excuse). I read this as: "Someone said women shouldn't go to war because they have periods. Since their periods would stop under the stress of wartime conditions, that's a really dumb argument." In short, I understood her to be saying that menstruation shouldn't be considered a reason not to allow women to serve in the military: just as you said. (Although I could be misunderstanding.) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:11:37 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: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/99 10:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM writes: << There is NOTHING about periods, how or when they occur, that impacts women's ability to defend their country. Sexual harassment in the military is still rampant, and this is one of the tools those who hate us there use to undermine us. >> Once, when I disagreed with my superiors at the Army Corps of Engineers (and by disagree, I mean pointed out that a process they were using did not follow the accepted steps for scientific research)*, I was accused of being in "the wrong time of month". The idea being that only a madwoman would disagree with them, and every woman was nuts during her period. These were the same guys who told me they would never read a book written by a woman because it could have nothing of interest in it for them. If you have never had to deal with men who will look you in the eye and tell you that your natural cycles make you less than human, or incompetent, or unmasculiine and therefore untrustworthy...I envy you. If you have never had to face that level of actual hatred and dismisal...well, hold onto your socks. Sooner or later, you will. Somewhere in "The Women's Room" by M. French is a passage where one of the women says men fear our entry into their professions because they think we will get menstrual blood all over everything (splat, splat, splat). I'm not writing with her style, but it made me laugh out loud. Anybody remember this? Oh, for the power to turn men into newts!! Madarone *PS. Their idea of designing experiments was to go over to the supervisors house, drink beer, turn the TV to a sports station, and say, "Well, what shall we do this year?" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:04:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elizabeth Pandolfo/Briggs Subject: Re: OT: Nuremberg files In-Reply-To: <36C35F96.72BFF68@bigfoot.com>; from marie on Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:54:15PM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:54:15PM -0400, marie wrote: > Could you please check the URL? I keep getting a > message about 'incorrect address'. > Barclay Blanchard wrote: > > > that atrocious website that lists abortion clinic staff > > Here's where the new site is: > > http://www.freespeech.org/riverpup/files.html I thought the Nuremberg site had been shut down. Barclay, are you saying someone's hosting the site again, or are you giving the original URL for the site? (When I checked the URL you gave, I received an error message too.) Elizabeth Elizabeth L. Pandolfo Briggs pandolfo@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:12:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/99 10:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM writes: << em hotep >> May I ask...what does this mean??? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:33:56 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <811a470a.36c32b91@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:12 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >In a message dated 2/11/99 10:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, >majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM writes: > ><< > em hotep >> > >May I ask...what does this mean??? Ancient Egyptian for Be In Peace em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:03:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <9902111903.AA07570@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:03 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >> >Maybe I missed something here, but I thought Santanico was saying almost the >exact opposite of what you're objecting to. Her post was: > >>(in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill >>produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual >>cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual >>cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty >>pathetic excuse). > >I read this as: "Someone said women shouldn't go to war because they have >periods. Since their periods would stop under the stress of wartime >conditions, that's a really dumb argument." In short, I understood her to be >saying that menstruation shouldn't be considered a reason not to allow women >to serve in the military: just as you said. (Although I could be >misunderstanding.) > >jessie Jessie, the way I see it is the moment we go down this road we are lost. We challenge them to then prove that MOST women don't have their periods stop, or worse, they then use the argument that if a woman's period doesn't stop during stress, then, for that time she becomes incapable, by definition, of doing whatever job it is she is supposed to be doing. We have got to be exceedingly careful when we let our enemies use our bodily functions to define, either pro or negative, what we are capable of. The other argument they like to use, is that women's upper body strength is not enough to make her capable of combat. They used this in the Air Force, for crying out loud. The only Air Force types that fight are pilots (and associated crews). And until very recently, pilots had to be very small of stature because jet fighter cabins were made small and they had to be small enough to fit into them. Yet women, already smaller, in general than men , were still seen as physically incapable of flying. They tried to prove it and found, to their horror, women withstood g-force pressure (the major problem for pilots) better than men. These arguments distract from the real problem - design of most things military was based on usage by males. So of course women tested worse, just as ethnicity affects IQ tests because of built in biases. Hope this helps you see where I was coming from. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:19:58 -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: OT: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990211135444.009d8100@emeraldcoast.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 1) I agree whole-heartedly with your opinons about stupid men using anything they can, including mensus, as a reason to discriminate 2) I think Jesse agrees with you, so I don't understand why you seem to be patronizing/attacking her 3) I think the only thing Jesse seems to be taking issue with was your attack of Santanico 4) Your attack of Santanico's remarks may or may not be warrented; her comments do seem to indicate that she thinks the whole thing is sexist only because mensus stops, but maybe she thinks they are sexist full stop and included the other comment to show that these guys are clueless even to the point that they don't even know THAT. I would ask for clarification. 5) This isn't an attack, so please don't treat it as such. Bonnie On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Majkia wrote: > At 01:03 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou > delivered your message saying > >> > >Maybe I missed something here, but I thought Santanico was saying almost the > >exact opposite of what you're objecting to. Her post was: > > > >>(in fact, IIRC, recently there was some kind of bill > >>produced to prevent women from going to war, due to their monthly menstrual > >>cycle. Considering that it's common knowledge that the female menstrual > >>cycle tends to go on hiatus during times of extreme stress, that's a pretty > >>pathetic excuse). > > > >I read this as: "Someone said women shouldn't go to war because they have > >periods. Since their periods would stop under the stress of wartime > >conditions, that's a really dumb argument." In short, I understood her to be > >saying that menstruation shouldn't be considered a reason not to allow women > >to serve in the military: just as you said. (Although I could be > >misunderstanding.) > > > >jessie > > Jessie, the way I see it is the moment we go down this road we are > lost. We challenge them to then prove that MOST women don't have their > periods stop, or worse, they then use the argument that if a woman's period > doesn't stop during stress, then, for that time she becomes incapable, by > definition, of doing whatever job it is she is supposed to be doing. > > We have got to be exceedingly careful when we let our enemies use our > bodily functions to define, either pro or negative, what we are capable of. > > The other argument they like to use, is that women's upper body strength is > not enough to make her capable of combat. They used this in the Air Force, > for crying out loud. The only Air Force types that fight are pilots (and > associated crews). And until very recently, pilots had to be very small of > stature because jet fighter cabins were made small and they had to be small > enough to fit into them. Yet women, already smaller, in general than men , > were still seen as physically incapable of flying. They tried to prove it > and found, to their horror, women withstood g-force pressure (the major > problem for pilots) better than men. > > These arguments distract from the real problem - design of most things > military was based on usage by males. So of course women tested worse, > just as ethnicity affects IQ tests because of built in biases. > > Hope this helps you see where I was coming from. > > Jean > > em hotep > > Majkia ICQ #722007 > > Visit The Portals of Majkia at > http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia > > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* > "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between > past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - > Albert Einstein > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:54:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: OT: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:19 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >1) I agree whole-heartedly with your opinons about stupid men >using anything they can, including mensus, as a reason to discriminate > >2) I think Jesse agrees with you, so I don't understand why you seem >to be patronizing/attacking her > >3) I think the only thing Jesse seems to be taking issue with was your >attack of Santanico > >4) Your attack of Santanico's remarks may or may not be warrented; >her comments do seem to indicate that she thinks the whole thing is >sexist only because mensus stops, but maybe she thinks they are sexist >full stop and included the other comment to show that these guys are >clueless even to the point that they don't even know THAT. I would >ask for clarification. > >5) This isn't an attack, so please don't treat it as such. > >Bonnie > Bonnie, this is my last missive on this topic(and not just because of you). You say this isn't an attack. Fine. I accept that. Yet you assume my comments to Jessie are an attack or at least patronizing. They were neither. I was merely trying to explain my thinking. This is too much like what's going on in Washington, assuming what is in someone else's mind and then acting on those assumptions rather than asking for clarification. I merely stated what I was thinking. I am attacking no person. this whole thing began because I commented that the use of physiological processes as reasons to discriminate (or defend) are sexist. That is all I'm saying. Period :-) em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:27:59 -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: OT: women, war, and periods MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Majkia, the first message from you said: "What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO." And then you said: "Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more egregious, to me, if you are a woman." Calling something "stupid" may not constitute an attack, but it is certainly seems dismissive and rude to me, and that second comment sure came across as patronizing. I think we all understand your point, and that's because we DID ask for clarification. Several times. And you gave it. I also think that Bonnie's point #4 below has some merit. Do you? Could you maybe have asked Sant for clarification before calling her comment stupid and sexist and non-feminist? -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Majkia [mailto:majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 1:54 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: women, war, and periods At 03:19 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >1) I agree whole-heartedly with your opinons about stupid men >using anything they can, including mensus, as a reason to discriminate > >2) I think Jesse agrees with you, so I don't understand why you seem >to be patronizing/attacking her > >3) I think the only thing Jesse seems to be taking issue with was your >attack of Santanico > >4) Your attack of Santanico's remarks may or may not be warrented; >her comments do seem to indicate that she thinks the whole thing is >sexist only because mensus stops, but maybe she thinks they are sexist >full stop and included the other comment to show that these guys are >clueless even to the point that they don't even know THAT. I would >ask for clarification. > >5) This isn't an attack, so please don't treat it as such. > >Bonnie > Bonnie, this is my last missive on this topic(and not just because of you). You say this isn't an attack. Fine. I accept that. Yet you assume my comments to Jessie are an attack or at least patronizing. They were neither. I was merely trying to explain my thinking. This is too much like what's going on in Washington, assuming what is in someone else's mind and then acting on those assumptions rather than asking for clarification. I merely stated what I was thinking. I am attacking no person. this whole thing began because I commented that the use of physiological processes as reasons to discriminate (or defend) are sexist. That is all I'm saying. Period :-) em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:42:08 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: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-10 11:47:44 EST, you write: << And the covers?? Horrible. Honor Harrington is a starship captain, for God's sakes, and she is described many times by the author as a dark-haired descendant of Earth's Asians (and whose hair, for the first two or three books, is cut extremely short)--but guess what she looks like on the books' covers? Blonde, caucasian, way too much makeup, huge wazoongas....I often wanted to hide the covers while I was reading those. >> To the authors out there--isn't there (if there isn't there should be) a requirement to at least skim the book, if not actually read it before being allowed to make a cover for it???? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:09:46 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: OT: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:27 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >Majkia, the first message from you said: > >"What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO." > >And then you said: > >"Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more >egregious, to me, if you are a woman." > >Calling something "stupid" may not constitute an attack, but it is certainly >seems dismissive and rude to me, and that second comment sure came across as >patronizing. > >I think we all understand your point, and that's because we DID ask for >clarification. Several times. And you gave it. > >I also think that Bonnie's point #4 below has some merit. Do you? Could >you maybe have asked Sant for clarification before calling her comment >stupid and sexist and non-feminist? > > -Sandy Yes. I could have. em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:23:50 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: OT: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-11 17:28:33 EST, you write: << Majkia, the first message from you said: "What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO." And then you said: "Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more egregious, to me, if you are a woman." >> Just a comment--It was Jean who said this, not Majkia. Majkia was not involved with the first part of this discussion; she came into the discussion recently. I know when the "qoute" marks start flying around it is hard to keep track of who said what. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:32:33 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: Oops!--RE: Majkia/Jean Comments: To: For.discussion.of.feminist.SF@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Okay, so I only read the names signed at the bottom of the post, not the ones at the top! So sorry! I did not realize that Jean and Majkia were one and the same. (slinking back into the corner now) Jean/Majkia--please forgive my intrusion into your discussion. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:35:05 -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: OT: women, war, and periods MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Majkia IS Jean. Check back and look at the "from" line and the signoffs. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft [mailto:TMBouwman@AOL.COM] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 3:24 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: women, war, and periods In a message dated 99-02-11 17:28:33 EST, you write: << Majkia, the first message from you said: "What an incredibly sexist non-feminist remark. And, stupid, IMHO." And then you said: "Dear Sant. You are still not feminist in your thinking. It is even more egregious, to me, if you are a woman." >> Just a comment--It was Jean who said this, not Majkia. Majkia was not involved with the first part of this discussion; she came into the discussion recently. I know when the "qoute" marks start flying around it is hard to keep track of who said what. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:37:03 -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: women, war, and periods MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------599ABC513B9F5832E4D9F15F" --------------599ABC513B9F5832E4D9F15F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To point this more in the direction of science fiction (and not really moving away from feminism), I don't know if this remark is serendipity or a subtle reference to Capek. In his War with the Newts we find out that the newt males have nothing biological to do with reproduction but have somehow convinced the females that their noisy ritualized dancing is essential to the process. That devastating satire seems dead-on in terms of the credit men take for everything. I can't be sure that women wouldn't do something similar in another field of endeavor but as things stand now and did in Capek's time, "we" (male and female) don't get pregnant. <<"Demetria M. Shew" wrote: Oh, for the power to turn men into newts!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:38:49 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: Judith Merril Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The "combined" author titles... collaborations on books... seems to me I see more and more of them when I scan my local paperback bookstore. Is this something new to sff, or just my own gap in knowledge? And how/why would this be desirable? I've collaborated several times on nf things, generally with good results and a good experience. But fiction is a different ball game. Any of you out there have feelings about this? or some insight into its occurence? Robin? Donna? Mike? puzzled, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:42:14 +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: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990211122231.009beaf0@emeraldcoast.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > This issue has been used for decades to convince folks that women are > somehow physically and mentally incapable of doing certain kinds of > jobs. Just because periods may be affected by stress is not the > point. The unstated point in this argument is that our hormones control us > and we are therefore unable to control ourselves during menses (PMS > dontyaknow). > This just gave me some food for thought, here. Could it be that we must censor ourselves, our words and our thinking because of what *men* might say, think or do in response? ...geminiwalker, who thinks militarism in general is a far from feminist concept in and of itself chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/9/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:42:14 +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: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990211132813.009bda10@emeraldcoast.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > At 01:12 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou > delivered your message saying > >In a message dated 2/11/99 10:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >majkia@EMERALDCOAST.COM writes: > > > ><< > > em hotep >> > > > >May I ask...what does this mean??? > > Ancient Egyptian for Be In Peace > > em hotep > > Majkia ICQ #722007 > > Visit The Portals of Majkia at > http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia > {waving her tail} Hi, Majkia/Jean/Emerald! It's me, GeminiWolf/geminiwalker! Happy to see you here, snappy and fresh as ever! ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/9/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:31:07 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: women, war, and periods (and Newts) In-Reply-To: <9902111903.AA07570@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi everyone:) I'm back on-line after my long, hot summer... Big *hugs* to Majkia/Jean, Madrone, Jesse, Bonnie, Geminniwalker and anyone else I missed on this 'hysterical' (no pun intended!) thread, welcoming me on my first day back on the List:) And to Donna, Laura, and Catherine - super-dooper *hugs* :) And .. great to see some new names de-lurking since I've been away. Later newts, ex-newts and non-newts:) Ciaow - Julieanne ________________________________________________________________ | | | ERROR! General Protection Fault in REALITY.SYS | | -Reality.sys file CORRUPTED!- | | | | Reboot the UNIVERSE to Correct | | | |_______________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:58:17 -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: Welcome (was women, war, and periods (and Newts)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Absolute delight to welcome you back Jules. I am sure you will have much to say. Summer? Sheesh. Forget arizona, my retirement home flip flop will be to Oz. Missed you bad, (poor grammar builds my most favorite endearments) *splooch* donna *********** ________________________________________________________________ | | | ERROR! General Protection Fault in REALITY.SYS | | -Reality.sys file CORRUPTED!- | | | | Reboot the UNIVERSE to Correct | | | |_______________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:00:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara E. Roma" Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf I've thought and thought and thought about it and I give up. What kind of woman would put up with this kind of crap? And WHY?? Barb On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:33:05 -0600 Majkia writes: >When I joined the air force, wymn were not in the REAL Air Force . Instead we were given instructions on putting on >makeup and using wigs so we always looked our best in uniform > . Also, at that time, if wymn got pregnant, they were >automatically thrown out of the military. >No ifs ands or buts. And marriage might automatically mean discharge <. We were not allowed to be in >certain career fields and these were far beyond the ones associated >with direct fighting. we weren't even allowed in the supply field >because they went into enemy territory some times. And wymn, of course, >were not allowed to fly - at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:15:14 -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: collaborations (wasJudith Merril) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To Phoebe and others of the curious, I dont have a sense of it being new. Maybe just more frequent today in a more intensely market driven sales arena. My take is that it is done for all variety of reasons. First and foremost marketing ploys I suspect. But sometimes to boost a new young writer, like the collaborations with well established big sellers (All the McCaffrey collabs); sometimes to truly collaborate amongst folks who write in similar vein (Golden Key); sometimes because the writers decided from the beginning to write together (J.F Rivkin). I am using weak examples, but my mind is blank (and she admits it). If Debra Euler is still with us I suspect she could shed better light than I. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:27:28 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: RFI: Day of The Triffids In-Reply-To: <000601be563b$edeacd80$c2b11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:58 PM 2/11/99 -0500, donna simone wrote: >I am sure you will have much to say. Summer? Sheesh. Forget arizona, my retirement home flip flop will be to Oz. > Flip, Flop? More like: Slip, Slop, Slap!! BYO sunscreen tho' Donna:) costs an arm & leg here, but may cost your life without it:) Anyway, I have a Request-For-Information(RFI) from FSFFU concerning the availability of a TV(mini-series), or possibly movie version made (I *think*) during the 1970's of John Wyndham's _Day of The Triffids_... [[and Nooooooooooo..I am not talking about that ghastly Hollywood B:Grade movie-version made in 196(4)? (kept waiting for the MGM musical extravaganzas, but Hollywood had to disappoint me there too!)]] I'm 98% sure it was a British production, possibly 'made-for-TV' and hasn't been re-mastered for release on video, or not outside the UK. I have tried tracking it down through BBC databases, tried most internet movie databases, and local distributors of the rare and unknown- zilch, nada. Apart from a handful of sci-fi buffs who remember seeing it, but remember nothing that may help me get my hands on a copy:) A long, long shot perhaps, but maybe someone on the list in UK or round-a-bouts knows of it? Thanks in advance Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:00:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: covers was Re: [*FSFFU*] nicola griffith In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:14 AM 2/10/99 -0600, Jane Franklin wrote: >And among the authors out there, how much control over the covers do you have? From reading Edward Gorey's "Mr. Earbass writes a novel", I have always assumed that it's more a marketing decision than an authorial one. >TOTALLY< a marketing decision Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:03:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: <007401be5513$635f92a0$8f689ad1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:35 AM 2/10/99 -0600, Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: > I've been ruined by taking a Theories of Feminism class and >find that many things that I thought were feminist are apparently not >thought so by those who retain the rights to decide. ?? So who IS the tribunal who own "feminist"? Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:08:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: <6b64c5c5.36c35cc0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:42 PM 2/11/99 EST, "Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft" wrote: ><< And the covers?? Horrible. >To the authors out there--isn't there (if there isn't there should be) a >requirement to at least skim the book, if not actually read it before being >allowed to make a cover for it???? You're new around here, aren't you? I once had an author go on at length about how he explained to the art director just what was in the book, and what he wanted, except it was over a liquid lunch, of course; then the art director drank lunch with the artist; then the artist began by (I'm quoting the author!) tracing a garbage can lid twice for the woman's boobs. The woman in the story was explicitly, emphaticly, small-breasted. Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:27:21 -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: RFI: Day of The Triffids In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990212152728.007afb30@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Julieanne wrote: > Anyway, I have a Request-For-Information(RFI) from FSFFU concerning the > availability of a TV(mini-series), or possibly movie version made (I > *think*) during the 1970's of John Wyndham's _Day of The Triffids_... Ask over at alt.cult-movies. Lots of hard core movie fiends over there who know more about obscure film than you ever thought anyone would care about. I got several helpful comments when I asked about Vlad the Impaler movies (even when I mispelled "Impalor")... Hope this helps. > Thanks in advance > > Julieanne > jalc@ozemail.com.au > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:20:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Female/male ratio in sff In-Reply-To: <36C1CCFD.2D66@people-link.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:16 PM 2/10/99 -0600, "Big Yellow Woman" wrote: >One thing that struck me about it was the "it doesn't matter who writes >a story as long as it's good" opinion. Seems a little too reminiscent of >the "view from nowhere" -- I mean the idea that one can just be >"objective", and that's the ideal state from which to express oneself. Of course there are viewpoints in the story; sometimes they may even resemble the author's. But how good a story it is is independent of the gender (or not) of the writer. (The painfully superlative Raphael Carter comes to mind -- run out and get "Congenital Agenesis of Gender Ideation" in Patrick Nielsen Hayden's new anthology.) It occurs to me that the arguments and confusion over "James Tiptree, Jr."'s gender make the naming of the prize all the more appropriate. Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:54:08 -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: Judith Merril In-Reply-To: <264e68e1.36c38629@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Phoebe Wray wrote: > The "combined" author titles... collaborations on books... seems to me I see > more and more of them when I scan my local paperback bookstore. Is this > something new to sff, or just my own gap in knowledge? And how/why would > this be desirable? > > I've collaborated several times on nf things, generally with good results and > a good experience. But fiction is a different ball game. > > Any of you out there have feelings about this? or some insight into its > occurence? Robin? Donna? Mike? > > puzzled, > phoebe > Frequently what's going on is this. A famous writer does an outline, ten pages maybe twenty, and then a less famous author writes the novel based on the outline. Frequently such books will be set in a universe created by the famous author in previous novels. Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, and Andre Norton all do this fairly regularly. Arthur C. Clarke has also done it. Such books rarely turn out to be classics, but the less well known writer gets a bigger pay check than she would writing on her own and she gets valuable experience writing under the eye of a veteran, usually someone whose work she respects; the famous writer gets a pay check for a couple of days work; and keeps her name before the public while she's working on a more serious novel; and fans gets a new book in a series that the famous writer might be tired of putting a lot of time into. And a good time is had by all. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:58:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Senni Tonnika Subject: Re: OT: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:19 PM 11/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >4) Your attack of Santanico's remarks may or may not be warrented; >her comments do seem to indicate that she thinks the whole thing is >sexist only because mensus stops, but maybe she thinks they are sexist >full stop and included the other comment to show that these guys are >clueless even to the point that they don't even know THAT. I would >ask for clarification. That was indeed what I was attempting to indicate. I was under the impression that it was pretty common knowledge that under stress women's periods can be delayed, but since Jean seems determined to prove that all men fear and loathe "wymn" and anyone who dares generalise when it comes to female biology (even if that person IS female) is, to quote Handmaid's Tale, engaging in "Gender Treachery". Basically, I was trying to illustrate how stupid these military guys must be to use a pathetic excuse like menstrual cycles to keep women out of the fray. I'm no big fan of war, to put it mildly, but I do think that if a woman chooses to join the military she has every right to put her life on the line if that's the path she's chosen for herself. This is, I think, the last I'll have to say on this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled paranoia from Jean. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:58:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: OT: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:19 PM 11/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >4) Your attack of Santanico's remarks may or may not be warrented; >her comments do seem to indicate that she thinks the whole thing is >sexist only because mensus stops, but maybe she thinks they are sexist >full stop and included the other comment to show that these guys are >clueless even to the point that they don't even know THAT. I would >ask for clarification. That was indeed what I was attempting to indicate. I was under the impression that it was pretty common knowledge that under stress women's periods can be delayed, but since Jean seems determined to prove that all men fear and loathe "wymn" and anyone who dares generalise when it comes to female biology (even if that person IS female) is, to quote Handmaid's Tale, engaging in "Gender Treachery"., that point seems to have been pretty much missed. Basically, I was trying to illustrate how stupid these military guys must be to use a pathetic excuse like a woman's menstrual cycles to keep women out of the trenches. I'm no big fan of war, to put it mildly, but I do think that if a woman chooses to join the military she has every right to put her life on the line if that's the path she's chosen for herself. This is, I think, the last I'll have to say on this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled anti-male paranoia from Jean. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:01:15 -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: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:54 PM 11/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >I merely stated what I was thinking. I am attacking no person. this whole >thing began because I commented that the use of physiological processes as >reasons to discriminate (or defend) are sexist. That is all I'm >saying. Period :-) Just FYI, I seem to recall in an earlier email, Jean referred to me as "stupid". Yeah. That's not an attack, all right. Not to mention that she seems to have been agreeing with what I was attempting to say all along, and herself jumped to the assumptions she appears to be condemning. Okay, that's it. Done. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:17:05 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: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/99 8:07:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, barbararoma@JUNO.COM writes: << I've thought and thought and thought about it and I give up. What kind of woman would put up with this kind of crap? And WHY?? >> I was really hurt by this but, you know, I think it may be a good thing. Because it means there are other possibilities for you, the kind that simply did not exist for me. At least I hope so. I was taught that you could be a teacher until you married, or a nurse till you married, or you could get married. There were posters in grade school illustrating that. It was a major earthshaking, relative shocking, gender-questionable thing to choose science. It was such a world of men that I used to pretend I was an ethnobiologist, learning the strange customs and dialect of the natives, careful not to do something taboo and get thrown into the volcano. It would be nice to think that things have improved enough that women can now do higher level (!) shocking things. I guess one person's revolution is another person's lapdog. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:05:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and periods Comments: To: For.discussion.of.feminist.SF@piglet.cc.uic.edu, fantastic.&.utopian.literature@piglet.cc.uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:42 PM 11/02/99 +0000, you wrote: > > This just gave me some food for thought, here. > Could it be that we must censor ourselves, our > words and our thinking because of what *men* > might say, think or do in response? No. If you're censoring yourself, you've only yourself to blame. If you pin your own self-censorship on men who apparently "make" you do this, then you're the one abdicating responsibility for your words and actions. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:07:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:03 PM 11/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >So who IS the tribunal who own "feminist"? I understand it's a small copyright firm in Wichita :P Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:06:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Fwd: ursula le guin event in washington 2/27/99 Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Did I already send this? Apologies if so ... >---------- 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: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:21:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: feministsf.org project proposal Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu Comments: cc: Beth Brown , Liz Henry , Heather Whipple MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hey, y'all. This is your list-mistress, NOT haranguing you about topicality, manners, etc. As probably many of you know I started (many years ago now) this web-site for feminist sf, fantasy & utopia. It's been a tremendous success & hundreds (probably thousands) of people have contacted me over the years happy to get info. Many of them have wanted to DO something, too. And I have had all these grandiose ideas - shared among some other friends also involved (hi Heather & Liz) - about setting up this space on a server, that could be multi-user access, and running these initial pages (converted to a database and much expanded in capacity), plus listserves, chat-rooms, and a variety of other services to the "feminist sf" community. That's great. There's no shortage of ideas about what we could do with this space. And I have tremendous confidence that with a reasonable organizing collective we could make it work very well indeed & really provide a much more open home on the Web for this stuff ... But honestly, I just have not had the energy to get it together; other stuff has gotten in the way. (As you may have noticed this is pretty much a self-maintaining list! You're doing a good job, I think, for the most part ... ) So what I would really, really love, would be people who are interested in working on this in a serious way, to contact me. I will subscribe you to a discuss list-serve that we can use JUST for talking about setting up such a service, how to run it, finding a provider, etc. Logistics, in other words. Don't everyone jump on the bandwagon! This is going to be a real commitment. * You should plan on joining the discussion, but sticking around to do some of the work. * There may also be a financial commitment involved. (Which, god knows, we all want to be minimal; me as much as anyone else.) * You should know SOMETHING about the Internet, web-hosting, databases, etc. If you really don't but think you have a lot to offer content-wise, or political-process-wise, please go ahead & contact me anyway. * No other way around it: My vision for what I want out of this group is going to shape the initial group and discussions. My goals: - consensus; - feminists; - gender parity in discussion & contributions (which may mean more women than men on the list); - as much diversity on the group as I can get - race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc. it'll be hard in the sf community - a final collective of perhaps 5 people to run a web-site or server that hosts many complementary, overlapping, and weird spaces; that are open to ALL ... (maybe we should host a list where we let people blow off their steam by arguing w/ anti-feminists) * We should all share a similar vision ... (you may ask, how do I know; keep reading) * The final collective should be, I *think*, probably 5 people. Perhaps answerable to a larger group. The final configuration is not at all set up in my mind, but I do have a broad shape in mind. * The initial discussion group can be larger. But it WILL stay on topic. That topic is not feminist sf. That topic is electronic service to the feminist sf community, defined broadly. * This group is NOT competitive with any other feminist-sf / queer-sf organizations set up. Our focus is solely on creating electronic space for resource-sharing & communications. There are other groups out there that do great work on feminist-sf (www.sf3.org - which organizes WISCON!). In fact our group may consider subsuming itself to, or merging with, other organizations (electronically) if those proposals come up. The web-space we come up with will definitely host other organizations' work and in their name. So relationships with other groups that do this; and how formal a "group" we are; must be discussed. So here's the process. Send me a note - tell me about yourself. Really. As much about your background as you care to divulge & think relevant. How you came to be a feminist & what you think that means. What is your interest in & background in science fiction. How broad are your definitions of sf. How willing are you to compromise. Have you worked by consensus before and/or are you willing to learn. Great ideas you have, but not in detail, please; save them for the group. Unfortunately, this sets me up in the position of reviewer. I will step beyond my petty lefty parochialism and be as open as possible to people who are not me. And I'll probably pass this around to the others of us (Heather Whipple, Liz Henry - hope you don't mind me bandying about your names without permission) who have indicated a continuing interest in this ill-defined project ... We might dialog with you. Once we think we're all in accord, then we'll add you to the discussion list we have. Then we'll begin the discussion. I'm not sure if this process will take a week or a month; it depends on what sort of response we get. I want an initial core group of people to begin working pretty quickly, though; this whole thing has been languishing in my hands for too long. This group will (1) find a reasonable stable server with the requirements above (and maybe others) very quickly; (2) set up a broad mission statement, an organization structure, and a smaller "steering committee" (or "working committee" or whatever we end up with) to keep the work up & keep the thing running ($$$). Imagine a lot of talk and thinking, maybe drafting documents, So here's me. I'm 30 yo female of largely Irish (some Cherokee & some hillbilly, I'm told) descent presently living in the Bay Area. I've been a bisexual for 10 years but am now & for the foreseeable long-term future only involved with women. In fact, only with one woman - my partner lives in Chicago. I'm a librarian! And an anarchist - which means I'm anti-capitalist, anti-statist. And an atheist. And sometimes I try to be an activist. And I was raised in the South by some normal OK people and some raving Christian lunatics. Friends often find me - tactless. And overly opinionated. But I guess loveable somehow anyway since I have a number of really wonderful fabulous dedicated (mostly female) friends. Which has filled up my life when I couldn't do it with family. I came to science fiction as a young person & just loved the ways that you could explore other worlds & other societies & other ways of being. It took college for me to begin a process of politicization which is still ongoing. But at the University of Alabama I read Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE and Marge Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME. Over the next couple of years I discovered Marion Zimmer Bradley, Ursula Le Guin, Sheri Tepper, lesbian writing, anarchism ... In Chicago I discovered the web, looking for ways to explore "feminist science fiction." Which had proven to not show a lot of responses in the University of Kentucky library catalog, or on the Web. So I put up a basic web page about Sheri Tepper's books. And then I thought, hmm, and I expanded that to one on feminist sf. And then ... and then ... and then. Stuff kept growing. Eventually I found out about Wiscon - found about LOTS of other people involved in feminist sf for years and years and years. And people on the Internet, in all different places, with all different levels of interest in & knowledge of feminist sf, kept contacting me. Some of them worked on the web pages with me, creating resources, despite the awkwardness of password protection, disk space, etc. (Liz Henry & others.) Others just wanted contact with someone - they were hungry to talk about this topic. But I couldn't talk with everyone - I simply had no time. So eventually I set up this list for those people to interact. You don't have to be a feminist-sf expert or scholar. You can have just a passing interest & want to learn more. Or this can be your dissertation & your life's work. There are no specifications along those lines. It's open to all - who are SINCERELY interested in & appreciative of feminist sf. But there are lots & lots of other things that can be done. There are already other resources out there, that other people have set up, independently, since I began or long before. Lists for queer-sf (GEEQ and a couple of others); all kinds of focuses. But in truth - I think there are lots more needs. I think it would be great to have a space on the Internet where people could come together & create the resources they need, together. So people could throw up a leguin list or whatever. People could discuss lesbian-separatism in sf. Or the ratio of men-to-women in sf & fantasy. Or writers could share work with each other. We could have smaller lists, salon-style, with only limited numbers of people on each (<20). The BDG could have its own list. We could have private lists with secure archives, so people could keep privacy. I keep having these great ideas, and other people have great ideas they share with me, and I'm just not a good caretaker of their ideas. I haven't had the wherewithal to treat their ideas with the respect they deserve. And honestly, I don't think that we should all have to start everything from scratch. I want to make it EASY for people to have a great idea, execute it, and then polish & re-form it, because a great idea is only great while it's an idea, but it can be useful and wonderful when it's a living breathing creation. And frankly - the website is a wonderful resource & continues to be. But I cannot manage it any more - I haven't been able to do so adequately for a while. But I can't bear to throw it away, to take it down, and I can't QUITE bear to just hand it over to someone else. I still want to be involved - I just don't want to be IT anymore. I want several of us to be IT. I've been trying in a half-assed way for a couple of years to make this happen, but by God, I'm going to at last put some energy into it. Because I have other things to work on ... I think of sf very broadly - magical realism, sf, fantasy, myth, surrealism. My stripe of feminist I think is less important, but it's not the Camille Paglia stripe; it's not essentialist. I think all oppressions are linked, different, not equal. And I think it's important to watch power dynamics - to acknowledge that some people have more power than others some times, and that power fluctuates. But to build structures that keep power from accruing permanently in the hands of one or a few. (That's my anarchism.) Oh, I have lofty ideals - to allow fulfillment of all of our human potential. But now I'm embarrassed ... Let me be more articulate in our shared language: Ursula Le Guin's novel THE DISPOSSESSED and Marge Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME continue to be works that have tremendous shaping power on my life. I think Candas Dorsey's BLACK WINE may hold the same place in my life over time, but it's too soon to tell. So that's me. well - there were other things i thought of during the day but now i'm too tired and a little tipsy from the opening night party for a new show where i work. so - i'm going to send this off & see what i get. oh - one more thing. everybody put in the SUBJECT LINE - FEMINISTSF.ORG PROPOSAL so i know what it is. i'll be out of town for the next 5 or so days but may be able to get to some of it over the weekend, maybe not. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:20:27 +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: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <199902120605.AAA60790@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > At 09:42 PM 11/02/99 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > This just gave me some food for thought, here. > > Could it be that we must censor ourselves, our > > words and our thinking because of what *men* > > might say, think or do in response? > > No. > > If you're censoring yourself, you've only yourself to blame. If you pin your > own self-censorship on men who apparently "make" you do this, then you're > the one abdicating responsibility for your words and actions. > > Sant. > Well, that was my point, exactly. I have worked with (and for) women, however, who seemed to feel the need to censor everyone around them for this very reason. Because of what *they* might think, feel, say or do, including "pulling our funding." It's a very difficult stand we all struggle with from time to time, I think. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/9/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:36:39 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barclay Blanchard Subject: Re: OT: Nuremberg files Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Someone new (freespech.org) was hosting the site 2 days ago. The antiabortion terrorists are persistent; they're not letting a $100M lawsuit stop them from posting this information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:47:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <19990211.200044.10990.2.BarbaraRoma@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:00 PM 2/11/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >I've thought and thought and thought about it and I give up. What kind >of woman would put up with this kind of crap? And WHY?? > >Barb > > >On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:33:05 -0600 Majkia >writes: >>When I joined the air force, wymn were not in the REAL Air Force >. Instead we were given instructions on putting on >>makeup and using wigs so we always looked our best in uniform >> . Also, at that time, if >>wymn got pregnant, they were automatically thrown out of the military. >>No ifs ands or buts. And marriage might automatically mean discharge ><. We were not allowed to be in >>certain career fields and these were far beyond the ones associated >>with direct fighting. we weren't even allowed in the supply field >because they >>went into enemy territory some times. And wymn, of course, were not >>allowed to fly - at all. Because we 1) didn't know this was what we were going to get and 2) we wanted to change things and 3) I joined the AF because I couldn't get a job. I was too qualified to be a secretary (they knew I'd leave the second I got a better offer, and I was never allowed a job that I was qualified for because men needed them to support their families - I was told this to my face - women didn't need to be statisticians/mathematicians/computer scientists. And, if I had landed a job, I'd get paid far less than my male colleagues. At least in the Air Force my pay check was the same as male butter bars (butter bars are Second Lieutenants - lowest ranking officers) - and, I got into the computer field. Obviously we at least succeeded in partial degree, since women are now pilots and are now able to serve in almost all career fields. I was only the second woman EVER to go thru computer programmers school. The first woman had gone thru the school only two months before me. For most of my career, I worked with men who'd NEVER worked with a woman other than secretaries. It was generally me, 100 or so men, and maybe two female secretaries. Jean em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:21:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:20 AM 12/02/99 +0000, you wrote: > Well, that was my point, exactly. > I have worked with (and for) women, however, > who seemed to feel the need to censor > everyone around them for this very reason. > Because of what *they* might think, feel, > say or do, including "pulling our funding." > > It's a very difficult stand we all struggle with > from time to time, I think. Difficult it most certainly is. Because most people (let alone women) have had it ingrained in them since they could speak that they mustn't say anything controversial, not "rock the boat", you face a choice: do you want to say something that'll make everyone happy, or say something you feel is important and should be said? This applies to everyone but especially, I feel, to writers (bringing this back around to SF, sorta). I'm not saying a writer who feels like being offensive should feel free to do so (yes, John Norman, I'm looking at you), but if writers did only write what the population found accessible, we would never have had a "Female Eunuch", or a "Lolita" (not exactly feminist, I know, but still a very interesting and beautifully written character study), or a "Naked Lunch", or a "Wasp Factory" (a novel I really liked, but apparently most of the critics at the time violently disagreed when it first published). Basically, I feel that if a writer censors him- or herself, it not only ensures that the work is more "removed" from him or her emotionally, but the readers will also pick up on this and be left dissatisfied; not exactly a satisfactory situation all around. Well, unless of course John Norman ever decides to censor himself. Then I may rethink my whole position on this ;) Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:34:43 +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: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <199902121421.IAA33956@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Santanico wrote: > I'm not saying a > writer who feels like being offensive should feel free to do so (yes, John > Norman, I'm looking at you), but if writers did only write what the > population found accessible, we would never have had a "Female Eunuch", or a > "Lolita" or a "Naked Lunch", or a "Wasp Factory" There's a problem there, though. If we admit that maybe writers whom others find offensive -- John Norman for some, Salman Rushdie for others -- should not be published, who is to decide. A public office of censorship? Before seeing this mail I was mentioning to a colleague that I had faced the dilemma of getting into a taxicab in Washington DC to find the (Muslim) taxidriver -- sorry, _cabdriver_ -- was reading _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. My (Jewish) partner wanted to get out immediately; perhaps we should have done. But that's a book that perhaps shouldn't be published. My colleague tells me that in Britain it is published by a British Fascist group in North Wales, and that he has seen a pile of them on sale in a Muslim newsagent in London. But, again, who is the censor? Edward James Reading, UK. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:10:18 +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: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.24.19990212063917.00a227e0@emeraldcoast.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > Obviously we at least succeeded in partial degree, since women are now > pilots and are now able to serve in almost all career fields. I was only > the second woman EVER to go thru computer programmers school. The first > woman had gone thru the school only two months before me. For most of my > career, I worked with men who'd NEVER worked with a woman other than > secretaries. It was generally me, 100 or so men, and maybe two female > secretaries. > Jean > > em hotep > > Majkia ICQ #722007 > You have truly led the way for many women in very difficult times. For that, I honor you and accord you the utmost of respect. No one can take that away from you. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/9/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:11:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:34 PM 12/02/99 +0000, you wrote: >There's a problem there, though. If we admit that maybe writers whom >others find offensive -- John Norman for some, Salman Rushdie for others >-- should not be published, who is to decide. A public office of >censorship? I should explain that I was joking about John Norman, Edward. My dislike of the Gor novels is something of a running theme around here. When I was saying that an author should not feel free to do so, I meant that he or she should at least _think_ a little first about what he or she's going to put on paper (I don't think that's too much to ask of a writer, do you?). If they decide that it's something they have to or really want to say, then I've got no problem with it. But if it's just there for no other reason than to be hateful (see: John Carpenter's Wifebeaters - uh, Vampires), why should any of us bother reading/watching it? Speaking for myself, if I don't like a work, I don't read any more of it. I just don't see _why_ certain authors feel the need to degrade women, or people of other races, in their work. I do, however, wish they wouldn't; it feels as though they're abusing the freedom of speech somehow, giving it a bad name. But hey, if that's how some people want to pollute literature, I ain't stopping 'em. I just don't have to give them my money. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:16:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Bucci, Elizabeth" Subject: OT: Women and Work: IT IS BETTER! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I detest off-topic discussions, but I will make an exception in this case. I have followed some of the discussion regarding women in the army and I couldn't let you all think that our (women's) situation hasn't changed at all. I am an engineer with an MBA, 35 years old, working for Foxboro (as you can tell from my address, I am currently at work, and don't really have the time to be doing this, but I will anyway...). I must say, that I have been very lucky : the women pioneers ahead of me have had to go through so much crap that I have not had to go through. So, if it's any consolation to those of you who had to endure the terrible sexism just to be able to do something you like, like science, please be aware that your efforts have not been wasted. Women like me have benefited from your sacrifices! Here's just a few examples : * In 1994, during my MATERNITY LEAVE (!!) (in Canada, it's six months!), I applied to a job as a project manager for a major engineering company (ABB, for those of you in the know). I told them that I was unavailable until my leave was up (about two months later), AND THEY WAITED FOR ME!!! (I was a perfect fit for the job, I had all of the qualifications that they needed so I guess they figured they could wait a few months for me!) * Last summer, I decided to leave ABB and was being interviewed by my current employer, Foxboro. I told them that I have two children, love my job, am ambitious, but am not interested in sacrificing my family life for them. Therefore, I was very clear that I get in at 8 :30 IF I'M LUCKY and leave at 5 :00 PM (to go to the daycare, with my husband, of course...), and that's it. I explained this to the HR director, to my future boss as well as to the President, and they all said: okay. No problem. Again, I had the exact experience and qualifications they were looking for and used my power (yes, I have some) to negotiate what I wanted, which was that whole "quality of life" thing. (I also explained that I always meet my performance objectives and that I don't need to be here 60 hours a week to do it. And I do. I'm good at what I do and am not shy about admitting it.) * Part of the reason for my leaving ABB (and I'm not shy about announcing it on a listserv) is that they were not a woman-friendly company. It's easy to use the excuse that « well, there are only about 20% of the engineering population that are women so you can't expect us to have a whole lot of woman in management », but my answer back was always : « yeah? How come there are no woman controllers? More than 50% of business school graduates are woman, surely you can find ONE woman controller! How about the VP of HR in Canada? That's always supposed to be the pink ghetto : at the very least, that position should be a woman! At ABB Canada, it's held by a man! » So guess what I did? I left, and went to work for a company (Foxboro Canada) who can't hire enough women! One of the key engineering managers with whom I work is a woman (who also left ABB, haha) and my own position (Senior Project Manager) is not insignificant. * While at ABB, I was pretty vocal about woman in management (there are none) and made it very clear as being one my reasons for leaving. In the period from 1996 to 1998, the particular division where I worked in Montreal lost three women engineers (myself included) in entry-level management positions. In all cases, ABB just couldn't give us what we wanted, so we left. Yes, we can do that. What I am trying to say here is that : woman have power, especially if you're good at what you do. Don't be afraid to use it. And if you work for a sexist company, leave. Go work somewhere else. We may not have had that choice twenty years ago : we do now. More and more companies are realizing that it is just plain STUPID not to have more women/minorities/diversity in management : it cuts you off from exciting new marketing and business opportunities. In short, it makes for good business to have all sorts of people in your management ranks. There is a choice, there are options for woman who want more : just don't be afraid to make your demands (as I did) and don't be afraid to express your opinions (as I did at ABB and continue to do). And right now? I am a happy Sr. Project Manager with a challenging career and family life. (Yes, I work and have kids. Why not? It's my life, right?) I really do have it all, and I have all those women before me who suffered so much in our oppressive sexist society to thank for it. So, thank you so very much. Your suffering was not in vain. I could never have been this happy without you! --Elisabeth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:43:51 -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: women, war, and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ><< Instead we were given instructions on putting on > makeup and using wigs s >> > > > (speechless) > >Madrone Ah, things had improved radically in the early 1980's. We were trained in all kinds of weapons (M-16, Claymore mine, M-60 machine gun, grenade launcher, etc.), but of course we ALSO had to attend a class on applying makeup. Imagine us all, dirty and sweaty and sleepy and hungry (as everyone always is in Basic), crowded into a giant room full of long tables, staring blearily at the instructors-for-the-day: perky, petite, blonde creatures who were busily assuring us that the brown/green/tan coloring of our camouflage uniforms would go quite nicely with certain shades of eye shadow. I, for one, had a tough time taking it very seriously. I wonder what the GUYS were doing that day? Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:48:21 -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: women, war, and periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This statement--that "men" don't make us do anything, that one has only oneself to blame--is true in the individual case but a pretty poor remark as far as the agregate is concerned. Does anyone notice that, if we all have only ourselves to blame, we don't really need a feminist movement, since problems are not structural or collective but individualized? Lest I be misinterpreted, I don't think that's what Santanico was intending to say at all. I just wanted to make the distinction, which is a useful one. For example, it is certainly true that an individual poor lower-class person can, through constant striving, luck, and intelligence, rise to wealth and power. But does this mean that _every_ poor, lower-class person can? Obviously not. The balance of society is such that _some_ individual responsibility can make a real change _some_ of the time. Therefore, it's important to be responsible. However, there are larger structural problems that may prevent a poor, deserving person from becoming wealthy and powerful no matter how she tries. Analogously, I would argue that there are very real structural constraints on women that limit what we, considered as an aggregate, can say. However, this doesn't mean that we as individuals bear _no_ responsibility for what we say. Or, analogously ("You can prove anything by the Analogy", said Bedap to Shevek.) it's like good cops. There are good cops--who know their neighborhood, care about regular people, don't abuse their power. However, the structure of cop-hood is such that most cops are (to greater or lesser degree) like the cops who shot that Guinean immigrant in New York last weekend. (In case you haven't heard--an unarmed, slight-framed, Muslim with no criminal record, who naturally did not drink or smoke. Going out to get some dinner. Witnesses now assert that he was not threatening, that the cops shot at him 41 times. And anyone who's studied how law enforcement works in this country should not be surprised by the fact that the cops have not even been suspended) Expecting a voluntaristic rather than structural approach to changing cop-hood will get you a few improvements, but nothing serious. >>> Santanico 02/12 12:05 AM >>> At 09:42 PM 11/02/99 +0000, you wrote: > > This just gave me some food for thought, here. > Could it be that we must censor ourselves, our > words and our thinking because of what *men* > might say, think or do in response? No. If you're censoring yourself, you've only yourself to blame. If you pin your own self-censorship on men who apparently "make" you do this, then you're the one abdicating responsibility for your words and actions. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:59:43 -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: nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>So who IS the tribunal who own "feminist"? > >I understand it's a small copyright firm in Wichita :P > >Sant. Well, dang!! If that's so I'll run right out and bag 'em--as I currently live in DooDah/Wichita. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:20:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:59 AM 12/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >>>So who IS the tribunal who own "feminist"? >> >>I understand it's a small copyright firm in Wichita :P >> >>Sant. > >Well, dang!! If that's so I'll run right out and bag 'em--as I currently >live in DooDah/Wichita. >Sheryl Go, Sheryl! Show those consarned Wichitan copyright lawyers what we think of 'em! Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:56:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Tribulations of Job Ok, Neil, you got me. When at the end of your first post I read the following: >>Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750.<< my heart went out to you. Aaargh!! Visions of a root canal on top of everything else, even Job didn't have to suffer that. Then when the same message was at the end of all your posts, I figured it was a quote from something. So tell me, do we need to contact our witch friends, or does Nalo need to contact her spirit helpers to try to salvage part of your life, or is this tag line just a quote from some other person's miserable existence? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:40:59 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Cover question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft" wrote: > To the authors out there--isn't there (if there isn't there should be) a > requirement to at least skim the book, if not actually read it before being > allowed to make a cover for it???? Tanya, we don't usually get a lot of input into our covers. It's a balance, that is, if we make a few suggestions they may or may not listen, but if we try too much they tend to get annoyed. The better selling authors do have more say, though, and also those with good agents. My agent also agents Lois McMaster Bujold's books, and she once told me that they were able to push for better covers when reprints of the books came out. For my books, I know that the artists has at least been given the scene to read in some of the cases. Most of my covers are an approximation to what is in the book. The only one with a character on it, The Radiant Seas, does look somewhat like the character, at least in a general sense. The character (Soz) is descended from the Maya, which sort of maybe could be true of the one on the cover. If you look at the smaller image of a character in the background, he or she looks like an Indian with long braids. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:25:23 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: women, war, and periods In-Reply-To: <199902101952.TAA02607@yon-net.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A friend of mine who was in Desert Storm said they took birth control pills in order not to have periods. If you take the pills with hormons non-stop (that is, without a week of placebo that triggers the period) the constant level of hormones prevents you from menstruating. I don't know if it's good for one's health, though -- like what happens to the uterine lining that never gets shedded and stuff like that. But the point is -- there is a way to prevent monthlies from coming, and a pretty easy one. Which is exactly what they do in the military at a war zone. Just some information. 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, 12 Feb 1999 19:28:25 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Multi-authored books Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 11 Feb 99, at 23:54, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Frequently what's going on is this. A famous writer does an outline, ten > pages maybe twenty, and then a less famous author writes the novel based > on the outline. There also seems to be 'universe design for the sake of franchising'. The famous author (or his ghostwriter(s)) designs a universe which less-known writers fill with novels. Presumably the famous author gets a franchise fee because of the value of his name in selling the books. In some ways this is analogous to the 'Star Wars' / 'Star Trek' franchises. Isaac Asimov did this several times ('Asimov's universe' and 'Robot City' are two I remember). Drake's _Crisis of Empire_ and _The General_ series are clearly two more although Drake was usually a co-author. It's also difficult to escape the belief that Cherryh's _Merovingen Nights_ series was designed from the start for 'franchising' - the detailed universe description at the end of _Angel with a sword_ is, I think, a dead giveaway. Obviously _Fever Season_ etc cannot be classed as "Cherryh books" in the way that _Angel..._ is (although, of course, my complete Cherryh collection includes all those anthologies). My feeling is that this type of thing is a mixed blessing - especially in the case where an author has already written several books about a particular universe because sometimes the co-authored books or those authored by other writers ring false. In McCaffrey's 'body-in-a-can' universe, for example, four books (_The ship who searched_, _The ship errant_, _The city who fought_ and _The ship avenged_) are particularly good examples of books that ring false. _The city who fought_ and _The ship avenged_ (co-authored / authored by S M Stirling) are particularly jarring although I liked these best of all books set in that universe. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _______________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:15:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Tiptree Award Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Over at www.tiptree.org they announced the winner (and short list) of the 1998 Tiptree Award. And the winner is (virtual envelope please) Raphael Carter for "Congenital Agenesis of Gender Ideation" FB ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:14:43 -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: RFI: Day of The Triffids Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >From the Internet Movie Database: (www.imdb.com) "Day of the Triffids, The" (1981) [TV-Series] Directed by Ken Hannam Production Companies British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [uk] RCTV Inc Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) [aka ABC-TV] [au] Country: UK Language: English Doesn't appear to be available. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:23:20 -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: women, war, and feminist sf In-Reply-To: <19990211.200044.10990.2.BarbaraRoma@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Barbara E. Roma wrote: >I've thought and thought and thought about it and I give up. >What kind of woman would put up with this kind of crap? >And WHY?? My mother was in the Womens Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) during World War II. Of course, it was then the Army Air Force, not the Air Force at that time. She and her friends joined it because they loved to fly and it was their only chance to fly P-51s, P-38s, B-17s, and all sorts of other planes. Also, this was about as directly involved in the war as a women could expected to be. They put up with it because they had to put up with it in civilian life all of the time. Why not put up with it and be able to fly at the same time? In addition, they had the satisfaction of proving a number of naysayers' predictions about women being incapable of flying fighter planes and bombers to be wrong. In fact, the WASPs' had a far superior safty record in noncombat flying than the men. Of course, they were never allowed into combat or even ferry airplanes to the Soviet Union. The men who had a pathological hatred for the WASPs were the flyers who thought that they had nice safe assignments stateside ferrying planes and towing targets. They were very unhappy when they found themselves transferred overseas where they could get shot at when the WASPs took over such assignments. An URL: Women Airforce Service Pilots http://www.personal.engin.umich.edu/~cptdr/wasp.html (I'm proud of the fact that mother wore army boots See: "WASP CLASS 43-4, 112 GRADUATES, 8/7/43" at: http://www.icct.net/~cahailey/cllist.html#43-4 ) Yours, Paul V. Heinrich heirnich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA "Go. Profit from exile. To see, listen, walk, pause beside wisemen; question savages and madmen; and listen to stories. It is always pleasant and, sometimes, improves you." - Jean C. Carriere in his play, The Mahabharata, based upon the Indian epic classic, the Mahabharata ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:41:42 -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: RFI: Day of The Triffids In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990212152728.007afb30@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Julieanne asked for info re the Day of the Triffids. There was a BBC version done in the early 80s, starring John Duttine. It was *very* faithful to the book and excellently acted etc. It is available here on video as far as I know, but not sure if it would be available in American format. You could try contacting the BBC web page - www.bbc.co.uk - which may have an email address you could get in touch with. Carol Ann ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:30:07 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* In-Reply-To: <004d01be547a$efad2e00$1e6b9ad1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Someone, whose name got lost in replying, wrote: >Well what do you know. I have in my hand an essay she >wrote in 1987 about this very thing. At the time (1969) >she wrote LHD, she thought "he" was just more convenient. >If she had it to do again, she'd do it differently. >The essay is in _Dancing on the Edge of the World_. I will have to read this essay, as many of the books whose names popped up on this list. I had a similar problem in my only, so far, published story. In it, a had an alien race, the Kukumatz, much like the Gethenians who were genderless unless seriously aroused or pregnant. In my story it was a Kukutamz anthropologist studying human beings with the help of an anthropological human informat who was mystified about how strange beings human beings seemed to be. I dealt with this problem by using the Yukatec Maya personal pronoun "re" that is neutral as to gender. It has a parrallel construction to he and she. I worked a brief note into the story indicating that it was the term which they use for while in their genderless state. Then I brought that the Kukumatz find it offenses to use "it" and inappropiate to use "he" or "she" for their neutral state. I would like to know how well "re" works as at least a partial solution for a genderless personal pronoun in science fiction. I plan to have the Kukumatz reappear in a science fiction novel. When I get the courage start on it, I will have to deal with this problem directly. (I already have a spiral notebook full of background material on characters and cultures and the first chapter.) >-----Original Message----- >From: Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:05 PM >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* > > >>In a message dated 99-02-07 11:58:47 EST, you write: >> >><< 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... I agree with >> this. She tells us that the race on the planet (sorry-poor >> memory here) is both genders and neither genders at one, >> and that they do not have pronouns for male and female, >>then she uses "he" throughout the entire book to describe >>them. Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun >>to describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. For those interested, the story referred to above is: Heinrich, P.V., 1996. The Informant. Anthropology and Humanism, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71-81. Yours: Paul Heinrich heinrich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA Marine Mammal Stranding Page http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/stranding.shtml Cetaceans in Science Fiction/Other Fiction http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/literature/fiction.html "Go. Profit from exile. To see, listen, walk, pause beside wisemen; question savages and madmen; and listen to stories. It is always pleasant and, sometimes, improves you." - Jean C. Carriere in his play, The Mahabharata, based upon the Indian epic classic, the Mahabharata ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:01:46 -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: women, war, and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I was told this to my face - women > didn't need to be statisticians/mathematicians/computer scientists. [I expect that you know this all too well, Jean, but I also expect that many people do not.] This is particularly galling as more and more information becomes available about the numbers of women that were involved in the earlier computer development efforts. Of course, there's Lady Ada Lovelace (who appears in at least a couple of SF novels) and Admiral Grace Hopper (I don't recall seeing her appear as a character in any books). There were many, many more over the years and their story, like that of many women in all sorts of careers has gone unrecognized. *sigh* Has anyone seen an SF story (short, novel, whatever) with Admiral Hopper as a character? -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: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:25:03 -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: Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------226066EB95C88C2D8816C4D7" --------------226066EB95C88C2D8816C4D7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been waiting vainly for others to point out sfnal attempts to subvert pronoun gender, though LeGuin herself did not. Piercy's utopians in Woman on the Edge of Time use "per." Delany's Stars in My Pocket as Grains of Sand changes polarity: "he" = object of desire, "she" = acting or thinking person in any other capacity. The fundamental problem with such experiments is their isolation in sfnal (or other limited discourse) universes. When Jesse Jackson and other noted "dark-skinned Americans of African descent" decided "African-American" (despite its illogicalities) should replace "black" and "Negro" (among other abstractions, most of them pejorative), it actually happened--in the real world. That same real world, however, still asks about newborns "is it a boy or a girl" (in a very small percentage of cases it's not clearly either) and most people are stunned, at least perplexed, by neologisms like "wymn." Language does not create social reality, though it may shape perceptions; usually, it follows what we are already doing. "Paul V. Heinrich" wrote: > Someone, whose name got lost in replying, wrote: > > >Well what do you know. I have in my hand an essay she > >wrote in 1987 about this very thing. At the time (1969) > >she wrote LHD, she thought "he" was just more convenient. > >If she had it to do again, she'd do it differently. > >The essay is in _Dancing on the Edge of the World_. > > I will have to read this essay, as many of the books > whose names popped up on this list. I had a similar > problem in my only, so far, published story. In it, > a had an alien race, the Kukumatz, much like the > Gethenians who were genderless unless seriously aroused > or pregnant. In my story it was a Kukutamz anthropologist > studying human beings with the help of an anthropological > human informat who was mystified about how strange beings > human beings seemed to be. > > I dealt with this problem by using the Yukatec Maya > personal pronoun "re" that is neutral as to gender. > It has a parrallel construction to he and she. I > worked a brief note into the story indicating that > it was the term which they use for while in their > genderless state. Then I brought that the Kukumatz > find it offenses to use "it" and inappropiate to use > "he" or "she" for their neutral state. > > I would like to know how well "re" works as at least > a partial solution for a genderless personal pronoun > in science fiction. I plan to have the Kukumatz > reappear in a science fiction novel. When I get the > courage start on it, I will have to deal with this > problem directly. > > (I already have a spiral notebook full of background > material on characters and cultures and the first > chapter.) > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft > >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:05 PM > >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron* > > > > > >>In a message dated 99-02-07 11:58:47 EST, you write: > >> > >><< 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... I agree with > >> this. She tells us that the race on the planet (sorry-poor > >> memory here) is both genders and neither genders at one, > >> and that they do not have pronouns for male and female, > >>then she uses "he" throughout the entire book to describe > >>them. Huh? I wish she had come up with her own pronoun > >>to describe them, no matter how ludicrous it was. > > For those interested, the story referred to above is: > > Heinrich, P.V., 1996. The Informant. Anthropology and > Humanism, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71-81. > > Yours: > Paul Heinrich > heinrich@intersurf.com > Baton Rouge, LA > > Marine Mammal Stranding Page > http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/stranding.shtml > > Cetaceans in Science Fiction/Other Fiction > http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/literature/fiction.html > > "Go. Profit from exile. To see, listen, walk, pause beside > wisemen; question savages and madmen; and listen to stories. > It is always pleasant and, sometimes, improves you." > - Jean C. Carriere in his play, The Mahabharata, based upon > the Indian epic classic, the Mahabharata ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:49:26 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: Personal Pronouns and Gender(was: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin's *The Eye of the Heron*) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I know it's not feminist SF but Greg Egan's novel _Distress_, as I remember reading it featured people who had neutered themselves and he referred to one gender-neutral person w/ pronouns like 've' and possessives like 'vis'. I rather thought this was interesting, not just the concept of gender-neutral persons but also the way that Egan treated/depicted them in his writing. Vivian ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:12:27 -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: I Who Have Never Known Men I just read this book last week and it fascinated me; although I should admit right up front that I didn't get it (TM). I'd love to hear other people's take on it. I don't even really know where to begin, but let's try: * what was this book *about*? I mean...it was interesting, no question. But it left me feeling a little lost and unsatisfied. If I didn't need to have everything explained, would I have liked it more? * I remember it coming up as a BDG nomination. What made it feminist? (I don't know if I think it was or not.) * did anyone read this book in the original French? Was the syntax and style as odd/unusual there too, or was it the translation? * At one point there's the following conversation: "Maybe we were invaded by the Chinese. Or the Blacks." "Or the Martians!" The "Blacks" really threw me for a loop. Perhaps this is also a American vs. non-American thing; it would seem to me that here "Black" would be a descriptor of an African-American, whereas the people who might invade you would be (and be called) Africans. If that makes sense. Still, wouldn't you say "invaded by the Africans" in France? I don't know. This book certainly made me think. I'm having trouble finding a framework for it, though. Other ideas? jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:36:02 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: I Who Have Never Known Men Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:12 PM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote: >* At one point there's the following conversation: "Maybe we were >invaded by the Chinese. Or the Blacks." "Or the Martians!" The >"Blacks" really threw me for a loop. Perhaps this is also a American >vs. non-American thing; it would seem to me that here "Black" would be >a descriptor of an African-American, whereas the people who might >invade you would be (and be called) Africans. If that makes sense. >Still, wouldn't you say "invaded by the Africans" in France? I don't >know. > It is only in America that Black people are standardly referred to as African-American. This always shocks me (who am from Switzerland), since few of the Black people I know are actually American. It is just as strange to call a Black person an African, since there are rather many countries in Africa... and they might be from Martinique or Guadeloupe, in which case, they'd be French. In French, Black people are called Black. White people are the colonizers. In England, Black people are often referred to as Afro-Carribeans, or some such term (I can't quite recall). In Africa, Black people from America are referred to as Americans, just as the Whites from America... I wish I'd read this book in French; I would say that much of the syntax, and the style are indeed typically French. It was a great book, though, wasn't it? I'm not sure we ever did determine that it was feminist, though the fact that the women are able to not only survive, but create various communities based on their own efforts probably would make it so. Heather =) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:13:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: I Who Have Never Known Men Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:12 PM 13/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >I just read this book last week and it fascinated me; although I >should admit right up front that I didn't get it (TM). Hahaha - you're not alone there! I found it to be something of the literary equivalent of a David Lynch film - interesting and evocative, but you never really find out just what the hell's going on. You really just have to sort of take it for granted that this is how things are in this author's world, and don't try to twist it to the "normal" way things are. I've heard the book compared to "The Handmaid's Tale" a lot, but the fact is, they really are completely different novels. IWHNKM (how's that for an abbreviation?) is more in the spirit of French existentialism (thus explaining why it's so completely depressing), which is why it retains a mysterious, "hidden" air for much of it, whereas THT was more firmly grounded in an American (Canadian?) tradition of literature, ie, more narratively and stylistically conventional. And for heaven's sake, why does every SF novel featuring a female narrator and a woman/women surviving hardship always inevitably get compared to "The Handmaid's Tale", anyway? >I'd love to hear other people's take on it. I don't even really know >where to begin, but let's try: > >* what was this book *about*? I mean...it was interesting, no >question. But it left me feeling a little lost and unsatisfied. If I >didn't need to have everything explained, would I have liked it more? I honestly don't know. I felt it worked on the level it was attempting to achieve; a mysterious, surreal state where nothing is really explained. When I saw the movie "Dark City", I was reminded a little of this kind of feel (well, up until the HUGE letdown of a "let's-explain-everything-all-at-once" ending). I think the aim was more to establish a sense of atmosphere, which it did brilliantly, than to establish a real sense of story or character (did you really feel as though you "knew" any of those women from the bunker?). As stated before, the French have something of an artistic tradition in this regard; after all, some of the most atmospheric SF films of all time came from the French New Wave directors ("Alphaville", "Farenheit 451", etc). >* I remember it coming up as a BDG nomination. What made it feminist? >(I don't know if I think it was or not.) I'm not all that sure I'd really consider it feminist, per se. It featured a group of women surviving on their own, but you could've made all the characters male without really changing anything in that regard. Didn't really tackle any "feminist" themes, though to be fair it can really be read any way you choose to. >* did anyone read this book in the original French? Was the syntax and >style as odd/unusual there too, or was it the translation? No idea there. I personally put it down to the translation. Foreign/English translations are usually slightly awkward in syntax (ever try reading a Japanese/English translation? Since the Japanese often have specific phrases for things that the English language can't really pin down that way, it can make for some really odd reading - "let cruel angel's thesis pound through your blood", anyone?). >* At one point there's the following conversation: "Maybe we were >invaded by the Chinese. Or the Blacks." "Or the Martians!" The >"Blacks" really threw me for a loop. Perhaps this is also a American >vs. non-American thing; it would seem to me that here "Black" would be >a descriptor of an African-American, whereas the people who might >invade you would be (and be called) Africans. If that makes sense. >Still, wouldn't you say "invaded by the Africans" in France? I don't >know. That part also disturbed me a bit; I didn't expect such a blatant bit of prejudice to pop up in an SF novel in the 90's (however, I'm something of an expert at ignoring faults in the works of authors I otherwise like, so I got over it). I think Harpman just decided to put "Blacks" so that the book, simply, would be relevant to any country who happened to translate it. I really wish she hadn't written that part, though, it bugs me more the more I think about it. Of course, there's the possibility that she might be commenting on how middle-class white women can be paranoid about people of other races, so that's another thing to consider. >This book certainly made me think. I'm having trouble finding a >framework for it, though. Other ideas? My advice would be to just take it as it is: a surrealist, rather defeatist work, designed to evoke a sense of place and atmosphere, rather than any conventional story. To wit: you'll enjoy it much more if you don't try to understand it. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:11:35 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Quick Query - "Liquid Sky" novel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" First a bit of explanation: I'm a big fan of the 1982 cult feminist SF movie, "Liquid Sky" (which I'm sure many people here have seen; those who haven't really should), and I very recently discovered that, in 1984 (or thereabouts), the film's co-writer and star, Anne Carlisle (a very talented and vastly underrated woman) published a novelisation of the film! This is certainly news to me, and I'm quite eager to place an out-of-print order with Amazon, but for two things. One: I'm sort of dubious about ordering things over the net. Call me paranoid, but I'm really not sure it's all that secure having your credit card number floating around out there. Two, and more interestingly: before I shell out my hard-earned cash for this book, has anybody here ever read it? If so, any reviews, positive/negative? Just wondering, Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:23:41 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: I Who Have Never Known Men In-Reply-To: <199902140412.AA02733@nsl-too.pa.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:12 PM 2/13/99 -0800, Jessie wrote: >* what was this book *about*? I mean...it was interesting, no >question. I suspect that meaning is in the "mind of the audience/reader". As others have pointed out, much of European literature, film and theatre is classified as 'arthouse' genre. Which tends to use metaphor, allegory, symbolism, minimal characterisation, and minimal use of standard plot devices etc in order to convey provocative ambiguity, and/or *atmosphere* - considered one of its "trade-marks". I personally have the most difficulty with German literature. It could also be a problem with the translation - there are always cultural differences, turns of phrase etc, which mean different things, or are untranslatable. Obscure political/historical references that every French school-child would know of, but not necessarily other nationalities - or particularly 'in-house' jokes and satire, are the most difficult to convey across cultural/language barriers. >This book certainly made me think. I'm having trouble finding a >framework for it, though. Other ideas? Exactly. Non-traditional literary forms are designed to "make you think", in non-traditional ways. An analogy is abstract art - visual art which represents concepts in a totally abstract way is often difficult to interpret. Discordant. Provocative. Suggestive. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:05:24 CST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch-Granberg Subject: Re: Vampire$, was "war...periods" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Santanico wrote at 02:34 PM 12/02/99 +0000: >But if it's just there for no other reason than to be hateful (see: >John Carpenter's Wifebeaters - uh, Vampires), why should any of us >bother reading/watching it? Speaking for myself, if I don't like a >work, I don't read any more of it. I just don't see _why_ certain >authors feel the need to degrade women, or people of other races, in >their work. I do, however, wish they wouldn't; it feels as though >they're abusing the freedom of speech somehow, giving it a bad name. >But hey, if that's how some people want to pollute literature, I >ain't stopping 'em. I just don't have to give them my money. I just felt the need to throw in my defense of John Steakley on the Vampires topic. I know the movie is worthless and not worth the celluloid it's printed on, but I do beg that people give the book the benefit of the doubt. It's still not what I'd call feminist necessarily, but it's certainly much more human(e) and is waaaaayy less silly than the movie. Sure, the vampire hunters are a boys club, but they're boys who are more than a little scared, and way more certainly than anyone ever needs to be that they're *right* to be as scared as they are, and know enough to know that maybe they're not even scared *enough*. I know it's been discussed here before, but I guess I'm just very very sad that one of the best books I've read (I've read it easily a dozen times, and have cried every time), by one of my favorite authors, will forever been linked to that atrocity by John Carpenter. I swear, if I'm ever lucky enough meet John Carpenter in a dark alley somewhere, we'll never have to worry about him ruining another good book again. Grr. But anyway, if you're interested in reading a smart book about a group of people (mostly men) who hunt vampires for a living (they're financially backed by the Vatican, but the Vatican is not responsible for the vampires being on the loose) and find themselves in the horribly scary situation of suddenly being demoted from "hunter" to "hunted" because the vampires have figured out who they are and are after them. Really, I can't stress it enough. If you were intrigued enough by the trailer-blurb to check out John Carpenters Vampires, go to the library and check out the book "Vampire$" by John Steakley. Seriously. And think of it this way... you almost can't *help* but be pleasantly surprised. Okay, I'll give someone else a turn on the soapbox now. Wishing for a time machine so she could go back and convince John Steakley not to turn his nice story over to that butcher, Barbara Benesch-Granberg bjbenesch@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:40:20 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: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-12 00:18:26 EST, you write: << Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. >> Sounds like a definition of a bad month if I ever heard one! Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:49:45 -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: Judith Merril MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As a fiction writer who should be working on a collaboration right now, with a friendly acquaintance who is getting ready to attend Clarion (while I dither as to whether to apply to the other Clarion), I'll suggest that writers collaborate for many reasons, including the theory (doesn't work too often in practice) that two hands will speed the oars, the desire to see what the two (or more) talents will come up with together, to make up for perceived weaknesses in each of the writers (to put it too crudely on the collab I mentioned above, I'm currently Mr. Story Construction to my partner's Mr. Ideation). But the ones you're seeing in the bookstores, Phoebe, are often at least as much out of the marketing department as anywhere else. Donna's right, sometimes it's seen as giving the new writer a leg up to be yoked to a big-selling name (and, sometimes, it's more a matter of the b-s n being unwilling or unable to do the work of actually writing the novel or expanding the original shorter work), but mostly I think when you see the one author's name in type bigger than the other's, you know that someone at the publishing house thinks that you're going to be hotter to pick up a copy of the new Arthur C. Clarke than the new Gentry Lee. Some of these collaborations, such as Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg's novel NIGHTFALL, seemed to be establishing an arguably even more-disturbing trend: "sharecropper" books open only to big names working in the shadow of somewhat bigger names. Silverberg has never had a NYT bestseller as far as I know, but he's not exactly been an obscure figure in the field; Gregory Benford has also been the "junior" partner in at least one of these kinds of projects, and if a form that can be honest tribute (as Silverberg apparently considered NIGHTFALL, for example) but which always has the air of a stunt, when not a buck-hustle, about it, is restricted to major writers working with other major writers, one of the qualifying aspects of its "qualified evil" status is lost. But this leaves aside the question of "real" collaborations, as the Silverberg-Asimov and the Benford items might be, and such work as by "Cyril Judd" was. Of course, the ex-Futurians (the NYC fan/writer/editor/artist group of which Merril and Kornbluth were central members) would collaborate with each other at the drop of a hat (one short story from the Futurian days apparently had seven authors), and maybe because of that and later experience, ex-F Frederik Pohl has suggested that no one should collaborate unless they can't do the story they want to do any other way. Perhaps one should keep in mind the typically colorful simile of Harlan Ellison's in his introduction to his collection of stories in collaboration with a number of different authors, PARTNERS IN WONDER, in which he suggested that collaboration was like working together to produce a child, writing solo akin to masturbation. A flawed metaphor, but it sticks with you, so to speak. ---Phoebe Wray wrote: > > The "combined" author titles... collaborations on books... seems to > me I see more and more of them when I scan my local paperback bookstore. > Is this something new to sff, or just my own gap in knowledge? And > how/why would this be desirable? _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:14:13 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: Judith Merril Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/99 5:50:07 PM, you wrote: << But the ones you're seeing in the bookstores, Phoebe, are often at least as much out of the marketing department as anywhere else. Donna's right, sometimes it's seen as giving the new writer a leg up to be yoked to a big-selling name (and, sometimes, it's more a matter of the b-s n being unwilling or unable to do the work of actually writing the novel or expanding the original shorter work), but mostly I think when you see the one author's name in type bigger than the other's, you know that someone at the publishing house thinks that you're going to be hotter to pick up a copy of the new Arthur C. Clarke than the new Gentry Lee. >> That was kinda what I felt. I've read some of them. Couple were good but they feel a little white bread somehow. Maybe I'm just being picky. I'm not talking here about, for instance, The Golden Key, which I devoured and appreciated highly. Just feels like marketing. thanks for your thoughts -- and to the others also. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:37:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: Women Writing / Segregated Education / Sexist Utopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am new to this debate, so I wish to be interesting. Since I read all January articles, I wish to thank Cathie Miller, Susan McDermott, Demetria Shew, Anna Mazzoldi and Maijan for their gifts of open and fruitful communication, really would like to talk with you. I think that in a all-female oriented discussion we have to admit we are in a subjectivist point of view, not due to our mischievious goals, but because we are limited as any other mortal consciousness. Particularly I feel I have to stress my strong support to Demetria's philosophy: education is getting in touch with our place in the Universe as we know it, and surely instruction molds the way you live. I have unfortunately never had any all-female type of formation, and it sincerely dropped me in serious problems in identifying what meaned to become woman without listening sexist mood; well, I mean, maybe I would have had different problems, but I didn't grow in a balanced psiche environment simply because I attended co-ed schools. Or it is obvious that masculinism is the right path to world experience in a patriarchy society? I think not. Ah, I want ask Demetria about what she means with "males have more developed the parts of brain regarding environment... the less functional ones". Which are these functions in your opinion? I doubt males are more keen on perception than us. As matters, I felt excited by the perspective of slash, I didn't know anything like this before, but I have experienced it reading a faboulous lesbian novel by a TS. We better have to keep wide open our minds to taste what others have to offer, or just for imagining what could exist to taste! Myself I write a little, and really appreciate new springs and ways of communication. Can you continue to give navigating addresses to read original works? On the argument of women authors and kind of narration: it is mannierism bothering about guessing what are writer's sex and/or sexual tendencies instead of trying to understand deeply how to feel what he/she intended to express, but with few doubts I can say very few ladies and lords of the fantastic writing have succeed in picturing the other gender. Body, mind, soul and spirit DO have a sexual shape or colour. Avoiding stereothipes let's see where our imagination is aimed, something like utopias of fantastic worlds we are wondering. Here think I can bring in the discussion in a new direction, as it seems the above arguments have the same core flow of thought. Do not think about sexism, whether male or female we rejected feminism as misoginy fanatism, right? So like that we shall trash any racism, are you following me? Now, can we put together all-female education, worthy womanhood, complete sexual expression and whatever you want to an armonic painting? I suggest a first debate: it is difficult to understand the other gender, I hate any kind of sexist violence even the more subtle (why do it have to be less painful?), then who will give an education to male-kids? Sincerely I cannot say for sure I am able to do it, granting my child would have a good behaviour. Then, supposing we are effectively superior to males, just for one moment think it possible: have you an idea on how manage it? You can't just stand up and say "We're the one and only best" and throw in WC half population... Well, we do are too much in number, but it doesn't seem a HUMAN perspective to me. I want to propose a vision. Cyberpunk is the most next_step_reality_linked fantastic literature, use it to guide the chaos of our hopes to keep feet on earth. I really would rather call it "Twilight literature", cause I feel most important our present gothic mood, our hearts, the real world we're in, the oppressive desperation of delusion one generation after the other... But we are also angels protecting the hopes of our children, the New Ones recalling "Mad Max". Well, I think I've finished, in hope of you agreed or want to talk about something I said. Thank you for listening and good life in the waiting time... Esperide ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:27:47 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Women Writing / Segregated Education / Sexist Utopias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/99 8:53:19 PM, Espiride wrote: <<"Twilight literature", cause I feel most important our present gothic mood, our hearts, the real world we're in, the oppressive desperation of delusion one generation after the other... But we are also angels protecting the hopes of our children, the New Ones recalling "Mad Max".>> What a mind-twitchiing way to put it: "...oppressive desperation of delusion..." Wow. Thanks for the post. Lots to think about. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:55:56 -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: pronouns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE583A.E3BFD520" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE583A.E3BFD520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Alle: May I make a comment about women? OK, actually, I mean about "woman." According to Barbara Walker (to whom I nod as the expert, as I am not a linguist), the word "man" has a root that ties it to "moon" and "Manx." To quote her directly, "In the original Old Norse, man meant woman. The word for "man" was "wer," from the Sanskrit root vir as in wer-wulf . . . even in Imperial Rome, Man or Mana was the mother of all creatures." To continue: "Skalds composed a class of sacred love songs to the feminine principle of the Moon and her earthly incarnation, woman; these were mansongr, or 'woman-songs.' They were expressly prohibited by the Catholic Church." (_The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets_, 1983) Now, as most of us have learned in school at some time or other, "wo-man" has come down to us via the Anglo/Saxon "wyf-man," or "man who is also a wife." It does not mean "wife of a man" in the modern sense. If this etymology is true, and if it isn't I'm sure a real linguist will tell me so, then "woman" shouldn't be an offensive term to us females, should it? And we would also be able to dispense with terms that have no etymological roots at all, as far as I know, like "wymn," "wimmin," "womyn," etc. The Man in the Moon.....hmmmmm...... Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:44:53 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Quick Query - "Liquid Sky" novel In-Reply-To: <199902140811.CAA03262@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:11 AM 2/14/99 -0600, Santanico wrote: >First a bit of explanation: I'm a big fan of the 1982 cult feminist SF >movie, "Liquid Sky" (which I'm sure many people here have seen; those who >haven't really should), and I very recently discovered that, in 1984 (or >thereabouts), the film's co-writer and star, Anne Carlisle (a very talented >and vastly underrated woman) published a novelisation of the film! This is >certainly news to me, and I'm quite eager to place an out-of-print order >with Amazon, but for two things. One: I'm sort of dubious about ordering >things over the net. Call me paranoid, but I'm really not sure it's all that >secure having your credit card number floating around out there. Two, and >more interestingly: before I shell out my hard-earned cash for this book, >has anybody here ever read it? If so, any reviews, positive/negative? Never knew there was a book; no fan of the movie. As for shopping on the web, it's reasonably safe. I wouldn't worry. As for books in particular, do you know about bibliofind ( www.bibliofind.com )? It's a database of two thousand used bookstores. I've had great luck there with odds and ends, and a "hit" connects you directly to the specific store that has the copy. From there, you can email, asking them to hold the book until you can mail a check, and there you are. good luck, Neil Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. <<& when I'd gotten unable to count all that on my fingers, and wrote it down, I didn't add that all that happened not long after I'd figured that I'd never be able to get the time off to go to Australia as I'd planned so long >> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:21:31 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: pronouns Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/99 10:59:34 PM, Sheryl wrote: <> Well yes and no. In common usage, woman has a sense of "coming from" man. I've even see it written as such as if "wo" and "man" mean "from" "man." The problem is not just in English. The male pronoun is used universally to mean "everybody." And I get a sense that many men (probably excluded guys on this list) accept that and scratch their heads about why many women feel that is unacceptable. Most people in the world don't go scrabbling about in etymology. But then but then -- Ms worked. Became acceptable, became preferred... it was inserted into the language, I think by Gloria Steinheim and others. As artificial as any of the other insertions -- mrs = Mistress = woman (implied married women because there weren't many who were not married). I personally don't have a problem with "woman." But I understand it as a icon. The pronouns are more troubling, as far as I'm concerned. I worked as a pr consultant for our local hospital and rewrote their basic brochure that was all about the doctor "he" and the nurse "she" -- despite the fact that the Chief of Surgery was a woman and there were several male nurses on staff. But then, the auxiliary names were all Mrs. James...., Mrs Robert... and ALL that got changed and no one said a mumblin' word. lightly, lightly phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:23:58 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: OT:Encyclopaedia of British History: 1700-1930 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_919038239_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_919038239_boundary Content-ID: <0_919038239@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII something from another listserv that may be of interest here. best phoebe --part0_919038239_boundary Content-ID: <0_919038239@inet_out.mail.LANG.NAGOYA-U.AC.JP.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (rly-ya01.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.193]) by air-ya02.mx.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:10:29 -0500 Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id SAA24689; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <5.0012B075@LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; 14 Feb 1999 18:08:44 -0500 Received: from LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU by LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 17574335 for VICTORIA@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:09:02 -0500 Received: from elmo.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp by listserv.indiana.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.1994C340@listserv.indiana.edu>; 14 Feb 1999 18:09:01 -0500 Received: from [133.6.47.173] ([133.6.47.173]) by elmo.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp (8.9.1+3.1W/3.7W) with ESMTP id IAA02883 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:09:50 +0900 (JST) X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1J Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:15:16 +0900 Reply-To: VICTORIA 19th-Century British Culture & Society Sender: VICTORIA 19th-Century British Culture & Society From: Mitsuharu Matsuoka Subject: Encyclopaedia of British History: 1700-1930 To: VICTORIA@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I thought you might be interested in the lastest details of our website. Encyclopaedia of British History: 1700-1930 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Britain.html A comprehensive encyclopaedia being produced for the National Grid of Learning and a completely free resource for all students of British history. The encyclopaedia currently contains over 1,000 entries and is an attempt to show the history of Britain through the eyes of people from all levels of society. This is a reference work that provides as much information about Marie Corbett as it does about Queen Victoria; where Henry Hetherington's life is examined in the same sort of detail as that of the Duke of Wellington. Each entry includes narrative, illustrations, primary sources and bibliography. The text within each entry is hyper-linked to other relevant pages in the encyclopaedia. In this way it is possible to research individual people and events in great detail. The sources are also hyper-linked so the student is able to find out about the writer, artist, newspaper, organisation, etc., that produced the material. The encyclopaedia is being created in sections. So far the following sections are available: The Emancipation of Women: 1860-1920 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/women.htm Biographies of 50 women who played a prominent part in the struggle for equality. The website also contains a database of written primary sources produced by, or about, these women and a collection of visual images that reflect the different views on the emancipation of women. The website also includes sections on Women in the 19th Century, Pressure Groups, Strategy & Tactics and Parliamentary Reform Acts. The Railways www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/railways.htm A detailed look at the growth of the railway system in the 19th century. Sections on: Locomotives, Engineers and Entrepreneurs, Railway Companies, Historical Developments, Railways: Towns & Cities and a detailed look at the building of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway. London: 1700-1900 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/London.htm A survey of London between 1700 and 1900. Entries organised under the sections: Buildings and Institutions (House of Commons, House of Lords, Royal Academy, Buckingham Palace, etc) Law and Order (Newgate Prison, Fleet Prison, Old Bailey, Tyburn Tree, Charing Cross Pillory, Bow Street Office, etc.); Commerce (West India Docks, Corn Exchange, Custom House, Stock Exchange, Billingsgate Market, Bank of England, etc.) and Events (1743 Gin Riots, St George's Fields Massacre, Cato Street Conspiracy, 1889 London Dockers Strike, The Matchgirls Strike, Bloody Sunday, etc.) The First World War www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm Biographies of people involved in the war including politicians, members of the anti-war movement, soldiers, inventors, artists, etc. Also sections on trench life, war in the air, war at sea, famous battles, weapons, the home front, and war statistics. Education: 1700-1950 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/education.htm Biographies of twenty-eight educationalists and six government ministers. Also sections on: Educational Developments, Famous Schools, Important Further Education Establishments and Government Legislation. Journalists & Newspapers: 1700-1900 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/journalists.htm Biographies of 60 journalists, 26 illustrators and fourteen cartoonists. So far 48 newspapers and journals, ranging from national papers such as The Times and the Observer to provincial newspapers such as the Sheffield Register and the Leeds Mercury. Radical 19th century newspapers like the Poor Man's Guardian and the Black Dwarf and literary journals are also included. Book and Newspaper Publishers www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/publishers.htm So far thirty-two biographies of publishers have been included in this section. This includes early pioneers such as Henry Hetherington, Joseph Johnson, John Walter, Thomas Spence, Richard Carlile, William Hone, John Edward Taylor, Rudolf Ackermann, Mark Lemon, Edward Baines and Archibald Prentice. Publishers that made their impact in the early part of the 20th century such as Lord Northcliffe, Lord Beaverbrook, Victor Gollancz and Ernest Benn have also been added in recent weeks. Child Labour in the 19th Century www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRchild.htm This detailed analysis of child labour contains seventy-six entries. Categories include: Factory Reformers, Supporters of Child Labour, Life in the Factory, The Factory Workers, Tactics and Issues and The Factory Acts. Over twenty children provide accounts of what it was like to work in a factory during the 19th century. Religion and Society www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/religion.htm Entries for all the major churches and religious organisations in the 19th century. Sections on: Religious Leaders, Unitarians and Parliamentary Reform, the Evangelical Movement, Quakers and Social Reform, the Christian Socialists, Religion and Politics. Poverty, Housing and Public Health www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/poverty.htm Biographies of those people who investigated the conditions of the working class in the 19th century including Edwin Chadwick, Henry Mayhew, Angus Reach, Shirley Brooks, Charles Mackay, George Sims, James Greenwood, William Booth, Robert Sherard, Seebohm Rowntree, Mary Higgs, Beatrice Webb, Stephen Reynolds, C. F. G. Masterman and Charles Booth. As well as extracts from their work there are also illustrations on the subject produced by Gustave Dore, Luke Fildes, Frank Holl, Hubert von Herkomer, etc. The material can also be accessed by town or city. The Slave Trade www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/slavery.htm Biographies of all the leading figures involved in the campaign against the slave trade. Also sections on the slaves, legislation and anti-slavery groups. Scientists and Engineers www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/engineers.htm Biographies of Britain's leading scientists and engineers including Joseph Priestly, Richard Trevithick, George Stephenson, John Rennie, Daniel Gooch, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, William Hedley, Thomas Telford, James Watt, etc. Artists and Architects www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/art.htm Biographies of over 40 architects, artists, illustrators and cartoonists that worked in Britain between 1700 and 1900. Towns and Cities www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/towns.htm Entries for 40 towns and cities in Britain. Members of Parliament: 1750-1850 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Parliament.htm Biographies of 60 Members of Parliament who had an important influence on British history. Members of Parliament: 1850-1950 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Parliament2.htm Biographies of 45 Members of Parliament who had an important influence on British history. Political Parties and Election Results http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/politics.htm Brief histories of ten British political parties and pressure groups. Results of the twenty General Elections between 1832 and 1945. Parliamentary Legislation www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/legislation.htm Entries for the major legislation passed by Parliament between 1700 and 1930. Prime Ministers: 1750-1930 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/pm.htm Biographies of 25 Prime Ministers who held office between 1780 and 1930. The Monarchy: 1760-1900 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/monarchy.htm Biographies of George III, George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V. Entrepreneurs & Business Leaders www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/business.htm Biographies of 54 entrepreneurs and business leaders organised under the following headings: Textiles, Railways, Publishing, Retail Trade, Confectioners and Entrepreneurs. The Labour Movement www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/socialism.htm Biographies of over 80 important figures in the British labour movements. The material is organised under the following headings: Pre-Socialist Radicals, Socialist Writers & Philosophers, Political Organisations, Labour Journals & Newspapers, Fabian Society, Social Democratic Federation, Independent Labour Party and The Labour Party. The Trade Union Movement www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TU.htm Sections include Trade Union Activists, Trade Union & Political Legisilation, Trade Unions, Important Events & Issues and Labour Journals & Newspapers. Parliamentary Reform: 1700-1832 www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRparliament.htm Over 140 entries that examine the struggle for parliamentary reform in Britain between 1700 and 1832. Categories in this section include: Parliament in the 18th Century, Moderate Reformers:1700-1820, Radical Reformers: 1750-1820, Radical Publishers and Reform, The Scottish Martyrs, Revolutionaries: 1700-1820, Home Office: Magistrates and Spies, Reform Groups: 1700-1820, Reform: Artists & Writers, Reform: The Monarchy, Important Events: 1800-1820, Newspapers & Parliamentary Reform, 1832 Reform Act, Politicians and Reform: 1832-1890, Parliamentary Reform Acts: 1832-1885. The Peterloo Massacre www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/peterloo.html A detailed analysis of the events at St. Peter's Field, Manchester on the 16th August, 1819. As well as provided a great deal of background information the website includes eyewitness accounts and biographical details of 25 people who saw what happened that day. Over eighty entries reflects the views of radicals, moderates, magistrates, soldiers, reporters and impartial observers. The final section deals with the consequences of the Peterloo Massacre. The Chartist Movement www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/chartism.htm Biographies of 30 Chartists. Also sections on: Chartist Tactics, Newspapers & Chartism and Parliamentary Reform Acts. John Simkin Spartacus Educational www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk --part0_919038239_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:24:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: pronouns - OT linguistic note In-Reply-To: <003701be586d$30058420$34739ad1@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, This is just a note to alert listers to a useful reference on word origins in English - Casey Miller and Kate Swift's classic "Words and Women: New Language in New Times". Besides being full of lots of useful facts, such as the copping of the germanic word for humans (mann) by male humans, and nailing the error one of my snide supervisors made in asking if I wanted him to call reference books "personuals", its also pretty funny. "The Great Male Plot" still makes timely reading - and will, as long as writers such as James Kirkpatrick and George Will are given print-room. Oh, okay and another excuse to quote Stanley Fish. On the use of "him" as generic: "It is not the force of feminist theory or even of supposedly theoretical slogans ...that has made such an impression on everyone, but the impossibility of avoiding feminist ways of thinking even when you reject them. Indeed, rejecting them is in some sense what one cannot do: the man who refuses to substitue "he or she" for "he" and believes that in doing so he is remaining true to his prefeminist self, is self-deluding; for the fact that he feels obliged to refuse marks his act as different from the one he used to perform when he wrote "he" without any awareness that it was a choice. Feminism "has" him, in the sense of determining his behavior no matter what he does". from _Doing What Come Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies._(1989), pg. 24. Also cited in "Convergences: Law, Literature and Feminism" (Yale Law Journal, 1990) by Carolyn Heilbrun and Judith Resnik. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:35:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: genderless pronouns Paul Heinrich wrote about the advisability of using the pronoun "re" for the characters in his novel. This seems good to me; however Marge Piercy's use of per, short for person, in the Woman on the Edge of Time is the best new pronoun I could think of. It's easy to remember, and easy to use because it stands for a word we already know. I vote for using it frequently. OK it doesn't apply to genderless beings, just to regular sexed beings when mentioning their sex is of no import. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:43:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Cetacean stories I perused Paul Heinrich's Cetacean page Cetaceans in Science Fiction/Other Fiction http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/literature/fiction.html and was surprised not to see Snow Queen there. From the length of the list, Paul, I would have thought you had everything. The mer in the Snow Queen are a dolphin-whale species that are central to the soul of the book. Try the book, I think you'll find them interesting. Then you could go back to our archives and check out the discussion of whether or not cetaceans have acquiesced in their current exploited state. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:36:17 -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: Cetacean stories In-Reply-To: <000b01be587c$3a4768e0$924b2599@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I perused Paul Heinrich's Cetacean page > >Cetaceans in Science Fiction/Other Fiction >http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/literature/fiction.html > >and was surprised not to see Snow Queen there. From the >length of the list, Paul, I would have thought you had >everything. The mer in the Snow Queen are a dolphin-whale >species that are central to the soul of the book. Try >the book, I think you'll find them interesting. Then >you could go back to our archives and check out the >discussion of whether or not cetaceans have acquiesced in >their current exploited state. First, this is a very valid point. Finally, I apologize for being unclear about the ownership of this page and confusing people. It is not my cetacean page. I just posted it because it involved cetaceans, in which I am interested and science fiction, in which I thought people on the list would be interested. Sorry about that. I should have made it more clear. (Also, I might have not properly saved the message before sending it, resulting a confusion of other URLs which should have been deleted. Oh well, I'll blame this snafu and my numerous typographic errors on being in a hurry so I wouldn't be late for the Spanish Town Mardi Gras parade.) My cetacean page is "Marine Mammal Stranding Page." http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/stranding.shtml I am in the process of revising it and fixing broken links, etc. Yours, Paul heinrich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA "Go. Profit from exile. To see, listen, walk, pause beside wisemen; question savages and madmen; and listen to stories. It is always pleasant and, sometimes, improves you." - Jean C. Carriere in his play, The Mahabharata, based upon the Indian epic classic, the Mahabharata ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:04:59 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Women Writing / Segregated Education / Sexist Utopias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/99 12:53:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, vmarchioni@IDS.IT writes: << Demetria's >> Madrone, please. It is important. I know one of the e-mail functions puts my business name on the list, but need to be known by my list name. Thanks. I don't recognize the quote, but would be glad to keep up a conversation with you. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:50:46 +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: Literature and Language MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I wasn't quite sure how to jump into this discussion, but I feel I must. While I am familiar with and adore Barbara Walker, I would point to the work of Mary Daly, though I don't have a quote on me at the moment. No one can pull apart (dis-cover) the language of patriarchy like Dr. Daly. And, if I can cite one poignant example of the power of language to make women disappear, it would be the word HIStory. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/12/99 ICQ #27240345