From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thu Apr 15 13:57:58 1999 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:26:29 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9903B" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:30:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: BDG. The Rock That Changed Everything MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sorry to join the discussion a little late. I'm still in the process of reading *A Fisherman of the Inland Sea* and I'm enjoying every savoury story...even more than I usually enjoy LeGuin. I love the way she weaves word webs. I feel that she manages to achieve what feminist thinkers like Helene Cixous suggest when they encourage women to write themselves, to write women (whatever than means - and it has a multiplicity of meanings!). I think LeGuin manages to do this. And in "The Rock" she engages us in metacritical exploration by outlining (or pointing out) the method by which she does it. We can boil down the story to a simple analogy: the obls create patterns, the nurobls create colour. Men write something, women write something else. The patterns are valued over the colour; in fact, those who think in patterns hardly even discern the colour. In these stories - especially "The Shobies' Story," I think, she is writing colours. And asking us to see that. I really like the title of that story - one might expect it to be called "The Shobies' StorIES". But, she shows that multiple perceptions can combine into a story that is wonderful and meaningful without being totally coherent, in the sense that we usually think of coherence... I saw Ursula LeGuin read in Seattle last weekend, and the piece she read from - a piece intended as a short story, but apparently growing into a short novel not yet published - was amazing. I wonder how much influence Jung and post-Jungian theorists have had on her writing over the past decade or so... Cheers, pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:52:20 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: OT: talent or teaching Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anthea noted: "I'm a good mathematician, but I can't write a poem to save my life; if someone were ever foolish enough to admit me to a poetry writing course, I'd deservedly fail. So perhaps the students of whom Madrone speaks, have significant talent in the arts, languages or business but little in the sciences." I teach creative writing on the college level. Some of my best students are in the field of math. I refuse to tell my students whether I think they have "talent" or not because there is no authoriative measure of "talent" that exists. I tell my students instead that 99% of genius is perspiration, 1% inspiration. I teach them how to write BETTER poetry (anybody can write bad poetry--and most bad poetry comes out sounding like Hallmark cards). If my students already "know" how to do everything I teach, I wouldn't deserve my salary. Talent MAY give one a certain inclination, but it won't necessarily earn an "A" in my class which depends upon doing a lot of workshopping with other students, responding to their writing, and improving one's own work. I teach skills, not praise innate "talent" which is not quantifiable. To drag this back somewhat to SF and feminism, for too long patriarchal society has deemed women "innately" cannot do math or poetry--and has professed to identify innate talents for such fields in men. I find that philosophy completely opposite from my teaching philosophy for under that philosophy, amazingly enough, only a few elite white men were deemed to have "talent." Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:57:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" No SF, but definitely feminism.... http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,20616,00.html This is a pretty interesting article, and I'd love to hear opinions about it from some of you who know more about the theories being put forward (and the ones they claim are being trashed). One thing I found interesting is that it says "women are more likely to become pregnant from sex with an alduterous lover" (apparantly there was a study), and use that fact as support for female promiscuity being reproductively advantageous. I've seen somewhere (can't remember where, now) that there are studies that show that the order of orgasm can greatly affect the probability of conception, and that women use that to get pregnant by the one they perfer when they have more than one lover (not consciously, but use it nonetheless). Anybody know any more about this? -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:06:06 -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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Desmond Morris (I think) discussed this in a Learning Channel show. Apparently women--somehow--do become more fertile with outside lovers than with longtime spouses. He also discussed theories that seem to indicate that men's sperm counts go up noticeably when the men must spend time away from their girlfriends or wives, apparently so that their sperm will be able to "outfight" any possible outsider sperm that may be hanging around when hubbie gets back home. But from what this program indicated, the sperm can't win if the egg has made up its mind......sorry to use such technical language....the same program also discussed the possible role of female orgasm in conception (seems the cervix jumps down and scoops up the sperm, kind of), and mentioned that sperm comes in three varieties: one of which is hunter-killer sperm, which seek out the sperm of other males and destroy them. The whole thing makes it sound like female monogamy has never been anything more than a myth. As the Time article hinted, it makes perfect sense for a woman to find a good provider and pair off with him, but it makes just as much sense for her to then go find good sperm donors for the babies the provider will help her raise as long as he doesn't know they aren't his. A fat wallet doesn't always equal good genetics, after all. In the TV program I mentioned above, a study was referred to that showed a startling 1/3 of children in one neighborhood were not sired by the men who were living with/married to the children's mothers. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Candioglos, Sandy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 9:58 AM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... >No SF, but definitely feminism.... > >http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,20616,00.html > >This is a pretty interesting article, and I'd love to hear opinions about it >from some of you who know more about the theories being put forward (and the >ones they claim are being trashed). > >One thing I found interesting is that it says "women are more likely to >become pregnant from sex with an alduterous lover" (apparantly there was a >study), and use that fact as support for female promiscuity being >reproductively advantageous. > >I've seen somewhere (can't remember where, now) that there are studies that >show that the order of orgasm can greatly affect the probability of >conception, and that women use that to get pregnant by the one they perfer >when they have more than one lover (not consciously, but use it >nonetheless). Anybody know any more about this? > > -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:42:13 -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: OT: talent or teaching Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Anthea noted: "I'm a good mathematician, but I can't write a poem > to save my life; if someone were ever foolish enough to admit me to a poetry > writing course, I'd deservedly fail." And Robin noted: > I teach creative writing on the college level. Some of my best students are > in the field of math. I refuse to tell my students whether I think they > have "talent" or not because there is no authoriative measure of "talent" > that exists. I expect that you're both aware that Poetry and Mathematics both require talent and work to excel in each field. I find it hard to write, but I can do it. I can't write nearly as well as my spouse, but she can't work mathematical problems nearly as well as I can. She's taken many more writing classes; I've had more math. I thought we were talking about entry-level classes. Intro or survey classes are exactly that. Introductions to or surveys of some field. For those, we need something _between_ the hard-line, make-it-or-break-it approach and the do-everything-we-can-to- engage-and-cater-to-the-student approach. Part of my definition of a good teacher is one who engages students and keeps them interested. The students, male or female, also have responsibility to come into the class with some interest in learning. In my experience as a student, that's a fairly rare trait--even in a pretty decent 4-year school. It seems that, for a certain socio-economic class, college is an extension of high school. It's expected that you'll go through it and get a diploma--not for the joy of learning, but because it's expected. Of course, this is a generalization. SF is one class that I took where a lot of the students seemed to be genuinely interested in the class. I think there were a couple of women in that class, but the vast majority were men. None of the women seemed to be particularly interested in more than the credits. It wasn't a feminist SF class, but I was still kind of surprised at the extent of the imbalance. -allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:49:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Masculine fiction and the canon In-Reply-To: <199903081552.PAA09776@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:52 PM 3/8/99 +0000, Robin Reid wrote: > I teach them how to write BETTER poetry (anybody can write >bad poetry--and most bad poetry comes out sounding like Hallmark cards). If >my students already "know" how to do everything I teach, I wouldn't deserve >my salary. Talent MAY give one a certain inclination, but it won't >necessarily earn an "A" in my class which depends upon doing a lot of >workshopping with other students, responding to their writing, and improving >one's own work. I teach skills, not praise innate "talent" which is not >quantifiable. > >To drag this back somewhat to SF and feminism, for too long patriarchal >society has deemed women "innately" cannot do math or poetry--and has >professed to identify innate talents for such fields in men. (lots snipped, natch) I'm also interested in how the "masculine" standards of fiction have taken such a stranglehold on the canon. For example, I don't know that there is an appreciable number of English language writers I would consider better than L.M. Montgomery, but the Anne and Emily books are in no danger of being appropriated by the academy. The only reasons I can come up with are that Montgomery's narratives have little below the surface (see Hemingway [insert quip about over-developed masculinity here]'s ideas on the iceberg) and that her novels, while realistic, have happy endings. But really, if I died unpublished and unrecognized but could write books as good as the Emily books, I would die with a grin on my face. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:41:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: ICFA In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Colleagues, Are we still on for a get togetha at ICFA? I forget the status of this meeting, but the time is drawing nigh for us to set out our agreed-upon time and place. Maybe I missed this update? Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:56:26 -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: Masculine fiction and the canon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know this is petty but I can't help it: It wasn't Hemingway, but Gertrude Stein, who came up with this way of describing literature. Hemingway was the one who first used the word "iceberg," but it was Gertrude who, several years before his pronouncement, wrote the essay which outlined this (her) idea of literature needing to be clear and simple on the surface but containing explorable depths beneath. As I say, it's petty to always be pointing this out, but you know Gertrude got the literary shaft many times and in many ways, and it can't hurt her memory to at least give her credit where it's due. Sheryl The only reasons I can come up with are >that Montgomery's narratives have little below the surface (see Hemingway >[insert quip about over-developed masculinity here]'s ideas on the iceberg) >>Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:21:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Masculine fiction and the canon In-Reply-To: <005901be698c$fdcf1ee0$b46a9ad1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:56 AM 3/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >I know this is petty but I can't help it: >It wasn't Hemingway, but Gertrude Stein, who came up with this way of >describing literature. >Sheryl > > The only reasons I can come up with are >>that Montgomery's narratives have little below the surface (see Hemingway >>[insert quip about over-developed masculinity here]'s ideas on the iceberg) >>>Joe Sheryl, Thanks for pointing this out...let me rephrase...thanks so much for pointing this out. I, in fact, didn't know it, though I did know that H coined the iceberg term. Still, I'm always looking for ways to send some praise Stein's way. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:34:58 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice Bogstad Subject: Re: ICFA In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990308124001.00b06a40@pop.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" HI, Joe. I'm certainly up for it...I will be there Wed afternoon through Sun afternoon. I think I have an engagement for lunch on Thurs or Fri but otherwise am free any suggestions? any other takers? Jan Bogstad At 12:41 PM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >Colleagues, > >Are we still on for a get togetha at ICFA? I forget the status of this >meeting, but the time is drawing nigh for us to set out our agreed-upon >time and place. Maybe I missed this update? > >Joe > > ________________________________________________ Dr. Janice M. Bogstad, Associate Professor Collection Development Librarian Library & Information Services, McIntyre Library University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, WI 54702-5010 USA email: bogstajm@uwec.edu telephone: 715-836-6032 "I HAVE NEVER REGRETTED BUYING A BOOK, BUT I HAVE OFTEN REGRETTED NOT BUYING A BOOK." _______________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:23:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Mastroianni Subject: Re: BDG Fisherman I really liked this collection. I've now moved my unread LeGuin almost to the top of my to-read list (it's right behind the Lensman series, which while definitely not feminist SF, is incredible space opera and has just been rereleased... mmm, bookstore employee discounts!) Maybe I'll comment about individual stories separately... for now I want to give my overall impression of the collection. First, a few quotes that resonate with me for one reason or another: He heard the singing, but only as a noise without significance. It was not until the first rock flew through his window that he looked up and cried out in agitation, "What is the meaning of this?" * * * "We all use each other", Oreth said. "The ritual says: we have no right to do so; therefore, we accept the responsibility for the suffering we cause." * * * "I say 'I'," said Riel, "and an infinite number of sentences could follow. But the next word begins to build the immutable syntax. 'I want--' By the last word of the sentence, there may be no choice at all. And also, you can only use words you know." * * * She was not overly troubled by my fit of weeping. Students are intense people, they laugh and cry, they break down and rebuild. I love LeGuin's use of language. She captures emotion and communication and the *process* of communication and its lack, all oh so vividly for me. And the worlds she creates work from the inside. Any old author, it seems to me, can create a map and a bunch of place names and some rules for the magic of a world (for example). But very few give their places souls. She inhabits her worlds with real people, that I recognize as real not because they are just like me but because though they are not, I am shown- not-told about the differences. They are organic; they fit the landscape. Claudia -- "Not many people think I'm real." -- The Wizard of Speed and Time ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:10:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Time article on "biopositive" women Thanks, Sandy, for the great Time article. As soon as I read it I ordered the Angier book, and the Hales seems to be one Madrone refers to frequently. Looks like they got feminism right this time. http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,20616,00.html Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:12:55 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorna Jowett Subject: SF conference in Texas? - deleted message MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've been lurking for a while and now find myself hoping someone better organised than me will be able to help recover a message I inadvertently deleted. This was posted a few weeks ago: notice of and call for papers for an SF conference, I think in Texas this summer. If anyone still has this one could you please send it to me. Thanks. Also if anyone has any information on other upcoming SF conferences this summer/ fall, or knows where I can get this info, I'd be very grateful as I'm trying to arrange a schedule for an extended research visit to the US August - December 1999. I've found the discussions here interesting though find it difficult wading through the w/e pile up when I come into work on Monday (anyone also have this problem?) and so have little time left over to compose replies. Great to hear some discussion of Buffy, though it's only just started here in the UK, also great to hear I'm not the only one who thinks Jadzia Dax from STNG is totally wet. I call her Dippy Dax in the privacy of my own home (on second thoughts, don't know whether this translates across the Atlantic). Thanks Lorna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:58:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice Bogstad Subject: Re: SF conference in Texas? - deleted message In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" HI, were you perhaps referring to the SFRA conference in June in Mobile, ALA? If so, I can get you the CFP and other info on SFRA....hope you will join us Best place to get info on conferences is SFRA list, IAFA list, SUS list, Mythopoeic society list....all also have web pages... for sf conventions, best is to know a fan or join a worldcon - but if you will tell me the region, I will send you info FYI Minnepolis, MN and Madison, WI do great regional conventions both of which are VERY different... Jan Bogstad SFRA Pilgrim Awards Committee chair At 01:12 PM 3/9/99 +0000, you wrote: >I've been lurking for a while and now find myself hoping someone better >organised than me will be able to help recover a message I inadvertently >deleted. This was posted a few weeks ago: notice of and call for papers >for an SF conference, I think in Texas this summer. If anyone still has >this one could you please send it to me. Thanks. > > ________________________________________________ Dr. Janice M. Bogstad, Associate Professor Collection Development Librarian Library & Information Services, McIntyre Library University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, WI 54702-5010 USA email: bogstajm@uwec.edu telephone: 715-836-6032 "I HAVE NEVER REGRETTED BUYING A BOOK, BUT I HAVE OFTEN REGRETTED NOT BUYING A BOOK." _______________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:45:41 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: BDG. The Rock That Changed Everything MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pamela Bedore wrote: > I wonder how much influence > Jung and post-Jungian theorists have had on her writing over the past > decade or so... > Nice post. I'd like to know that too. I always thought _A Wizard of Earthsea_ was *totally* Jungian. Did you know that she is also very into the Tao te Ching and has translated a new version? I just bought a discounted copy available at Daedalus.com if anyone is interested. BTW, book lovers, Daedalus always has great sale books of many kinds! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:22:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: book discussion selection results Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks everyone for their enthusiastic participation in the last nomination/selection round for upcoming discussion books. Here are the results: May 3 Sheri Tepper: Grass June 7 Connie Willis: To Say Nothing of the Dog July 5 Nicola Griffith: Slow River Aug 2 Octavia Butler: Wild Seed Note these were the selected books, organized in alphabetical order by title. If you have to order books and need more time to obtain and read Grass, and another book is less of a problem let me know and we can adjust the discussion order. We are currently discussing A Fisherman of the Inland Sea, by Ursula K. LeGuin. The April selection is Jaran, by Kate Elliot; discussion begins April 5. Special thanks to Petra and Terri for their hard work over the last few weeks. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:49:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Mastroianni Subject: Re: BDG results: Grass First, thank you to the vote-organizers! Second... I immediately called the store I work at to hold copies of the books I don't own for me. Without even looking at the database, Tyler told me that he's been trying to get Grass for a while, that he'll try direct from the publisher instead of his usual distributor, but that he suspects it's out of print. Given that Amazon lists it I wouldn't normally worry, but they *do* have that special surcharge listed. So I'm wondering whether anyone knows any more about the situation with this book. Thanks, Claudia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:55:20 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: BDG results: Grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Claudia Mastroianni wrote: > > Tyler told me that he's been trying to get Grass for a while, that > he'll try direct from the publisher instead of his usual distributor, > but that he suspects it's out of print. Given that Amazon lists it > I wouldn't normally worry, but they *do* have that special surcharge > listed. So I'm wondering whether anyone knows any more about the > situation with this book. I can probably pick up a few copies of _Grass_ at my used bookstore between now and then, probably about $3 a piece plus a little postage to mail them out, if there are many takers. Just respond to me (and send your snailmail)and I'll see what I can turn up! (Sorry but it's usually hard to find any of the newer books there, or Butler for some reason). Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:34:30 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: BDG results In-Reply-To: <19990309222904904.AAA241.131@jennifer.actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Jennifer, Petra, all involved with the logistics behind BDG: Thank you! I'm wondering about the numbers this round-- I'm not a statistician (by any means!) but it seems to me that with the number of nominations we had this round, it would be hard for a large percentage to land on any one (or 4) book(s). Was this the case? I don't know what sorts of extra burdens it would involve (or what I could do to help, if anything? let me know.), but I was wondering if, in the future, we need some kind of run-off vote when the nominations break, say, 12 books. Thoughts? Rudy Rudy Leon PhD student Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:53:33 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Comments: To: "Candioglos, Sandy" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:57 AM 3/8/99 -0800, you wrote: >No SF, but definitely feminism.... > >http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,20616,00.html > >This is a pretty interesting article, and I'd love to hear opinions about it >from some of you who know more about the theories being put forward (and the >ones they claim are being trashed). > >One thing I found interesting is that it says "women are more likely to >become pregnant from sex with an alduterous lover" (apparantly there was a >study), and use that fact as support for female promiscuity being >reproductively advantageous. I studied human genetics and population biology many years ago, and I recall that as reproduction strategies go, mammals of all species, from dolphins to elephants, to rabbits to humans - tend to follow fairly consistent natural laws in Nature. For mammals, the female has relatively low fertility compared to the male, who is hyperfertile. Whichever gender is the 'hyper-fertile' one, is the gender which is reproductively 'expendable' or 'redundant'. Amongst mammals, it is the male gender that is Natures built-in redundancy, or reproductive 'fail-safe' system for the species, and amongst all mammalian populations, females far outnumber males for this reason. Amongst 'natural' populations of mammals, the gender ratio in your reproductive age-groups is quite high and tipped in female favour, with large sub-populations of females who do not breed, at any age. All mammals, being the definition of a mammal, bears live young after some form of pregnancy, and lactates for varying lengths of time - but the thing they have in common is that the young of mammal species need a far longer period of care, than for other animals. They also cannot be cared for successfully, by a lone female, or even a breeding pair - they have to be cared for communally in Nature. Indeed, male-female pair-bonding, particularly for life is the rarest form of reproduction strategy, and the most ineffective and inefficient - particularly for mammals which have such long 'childhood dependency' on adults. The Nuclear Family of man-woman-child would never have survived, and is a very recent historical introduction for humans which has far more to do with economics than biology. This is why all mammals are very 'social' animals, they live in groups - herds, packs, prides of lions or hyenas, pods of whales and dolphins, troops of baboons, kin or clan tribal groups, even humans until maybe a century or so ago - mostly lived in large family compounds or households. Additionally, I believe that if social activity was not a pleasure in and of itself, over above and beyond the brief sexual reproductive act, mammals would never have survived to dominate the earth. In European early stone-age cave living sites, it has been noted that these living sites contained at minimum 12 adults, with various numbers of children. If the population fell below 12 adults, their survival was threatened, and the group either died out or abandoned the site. Another characteristic of all 'Natural' mammalian populations, is the gender ratio. Most mammals keep population in balance by favouring females, and having a substantial sub-population of non-breeding females. Not just due to age or menopause, but a whole variety of reasons. Pregnancy and lactation is a risky business in Nature, and for many species high infant mortality is a fact of life. To maximise the survival of infants and their mothers, the sub-population of non-breeding females makes reproductive sense. Also sisters, cousins, aunts are still closely genetically related to the infants of the maternal herd, pack, pod, or tribe and furthering the survival of close kin, is in their own genetic self-interest. These non-breeding females, are the primary defenders/protectors of the breeding females and their young, not man the mighty hunter. The sub-population of non-breeding females also acts as one of Nature's 'back-up' systems in times of population stress. If a population is threatened, with massive die-off due to disease, or environmental factors for example - Nature's way is to shift all biological *energy*, into stimulation of massive reproductive activity. In the case of mammals, this means shifting to favour survival of males to maximise genetic diversity, and shifting the non-breeding females into breeding. If the threat of extinction is severe, Nature will also ensure that individuals not directly engaged in breeding are eliminated from the population. Sometimes, the first generation to be born under this form of population stress, has sacrificed some physical or biological characteristic, but with enhanced fertility. Mostly, this is a temporary mechanism - and once the threat of extinction is removed, the population re-establishes the balance of removing excess males, and maintaining a sub-population of non-breeding females. With reptiles, for example snakes and alligators, it's in reverse, as amongst reptiles it is the female which is the hyper-fertile redundant gender. Being cold-blooded they optimally live within a narrow temperature range. Changes in temperature 'threaten' egg survival and population, and reptile eggs will 'switch' gender upon the stimulus of temperature drop, favouring the production of more female eggs. Nature doesn't just stop there though, to maximise the chances of the new generation of hyper-fertile females surviving to reproductive age - these females are often stunted in growth, and reach reproductive/sexual maturity much quicker than normal, and with 50-100% higher complement of genetic material. Often there is a 'sacrifice' of non-reproductive characteristics as well, such as in sight or hearing, or body-size. These changes are rarely permanent genetic changes however, and if the 'threat' to survival of the species or population is removed, the changes of gender ratio, and push to reproduction-at-all-costs is removed in subsequent generations. Amongst mammals, it is the male which is the redundant gender. Any cat or dog-breeder could tell you, that one of the first signs of too much in-breeding is a preponderance of male pups/kittens in litters. Stunted growth and intelligence, sometimes minor physical defects - but huge genitals. This is a logical response to the threat of 'in-breeding' - as male mammals can 'outbreed' far more successfully than the female - Nature tries to 'correct' the problem by producing more males than usual, solely designed for breeding to maximise the diversity of genetic lines. In the 1950's studies of the family lines of small isolated populations of people living in the wilds of Kentucky for example - noted the preponderance of stunted, low IQ boys within the families. They may have little brains, and physical problems - but their hyper-fertile gonads were approximately twice as fertile as that of males in the general populations. Nature is wasteful, and always produces more than is needed for survival. The 'excess' is like a 'reserve' - there if needed if the population is threatened, but otherwise not necessary. For mammals it is the males. For reptiles it is the female. Every species has built-in mechanisms for population control and balance. All mammals, have some mechanism of removing excess males from the population. Usually, it is some form of 'exile' from the maternal kin-group, pack or herd, at around the time of adolescence or sexual maturity. This makes perfect biological sense as the male is designed for greater physical mobility, and his hyper-fertility can be spread away from the maternal kin-group. Like plants spreading their seeds on the wind, mothers sent their sons and their genetic complement to go impregnate with impunity, in as many other lines or families as he could manage. But Nature produces more males than are needed, so most mammals have some form of 'elimination' mechanism to ensure only the best males survive after expulsion from the maternal kin-group. Sometimes, it is the famous 'dominance-fights' amongst males, sometimes to the death, sometimes not - sometimes it is just 'displays' of male-male aggression/submission for some form of heirarchy amongst males accepted into the herd, or tribe or pod or pack. Sometimes it is courtship displays to the dominant females. Whatever the mechanism, there will be winners and losers. The winners are accepted into the female-dominant kin-group, the losers are killed, or exiled to live alone or hang around on the periphery of the group. The accepted 'alpha' males, may think they have 100% access to all the females in his troop, but in reality they do not. There is always a sub-population of non-breeding females who do not breed anyway. Also, the 'alpha' males might sire a large chunk of the offspring, but nowhere near all of them. Now this is where we come to your question about women and getting pregnant via adultery. Male and female have different reproductive "priorities" so to speak. Female mammals cannot mother anywhere near as many offspring, as a male can father. Females are designed to maintain genetic diversity, and the female's 'priority' is to maximise the genetic diversity of the few offspring she can have. For the male however, with his hyper-fertility, his priority is to maximise the numbers of offspring with his genetic lineage. Left to males, mammals would become very in-bred very quickly in a few generations. This 'conflict' between genetic selfishness versus genetic diversity is most pronounced in mammals because of the extended time-period required for care of dependent young. Most mammalian species get around this 'conflict' through such mechanisms as the 'sneaky male phenomenon'. Also birds, interestingly enough, maximise genetic diversity via this 'sneaky' male mechanism. Remember the loser males? Well, not all of them die off as 'excess-to-requirements' although they rarely if ever, live within the troop, or herd or pack. Amongst primates, females will make brief liasons with males not members of their own pack. These often take place quite some distance from the home territory. If caught by the alpha males, the 'sneaky' male may be killed, or driven off etc. Nonetheless, the female is happy with her 'fresh' genetic infant. Sometimes, during male dominance-fights, the 'sneaky' males will quickly mate with the waiting females. From the female's point-of-view, a functioning healthy male in the hand, is worth two trying to tear each other apart. It is also a myth, that 'alpha' males are in total control of their females and reproduction amongst mammals. As an example, the lion, the 'king' of the jungle, who is fed and cared for by his lionesses is not always there for life. The lionesses may hunt for him, and feed him first - but wildlife documentaries never show how often the lionesses will wander off and refuse to feed him, when another male that takes their fancy wanders by. Some prides of lionesses 'switch' alpha males every mating season. The male lion is often left alone to die of starvation, and male-dominance fights amongst lions are not always performed. Another mechanism, you never see on wildlife programs is the 'aggressive female pack' mechanism. eg. Baboons. If a population has males in short supply, and one or two dominant males are threatening the population by killing off too many other males - the females will 'gang up' and attack the alpha males, sometimes to the death - so that there are more males available to mate with. It is also a myth, that only human females are receptive to sexual activity outside of oestrus cycles. Many primates, chimps for example, engage in non-reproductive sexual activity when they are not fertile. The most popular theory figures that this sort of activity, is a 'bonding' mechanism, and un-related to reproduction. Since most theorists are male, they cannot see the concept of reproduction beyond their own biology, and the brief sexual act. Hence they believe that the 'alpha' male is the father of all offspring within his territory. Mammals are 'naturally' polygamous, by weighing survival of the female over that of the male. 'natural' polygamy however, is often on the female's terms and conditions, not the males. Female biology perceives the sexual act as not much more than a minor blip in the overall scheme of things, and since their bodies are designed for the 'long haul' of reproduction over many years - the 10 minutes of coitus is about as important to the female as an itchy big-toe. The 'sneaky' male may get his 10 minutes of fun, in the interests of maintaining genetic diversity - but thats all he gets. His life on the periphery of the female 'core' society is risky and precarious and uncertain. The 'alpha' males accepted within the 'core' social group, get a lot more than just the opportunity to deposit their sperm in the right place at the right time. They get fed, sheltered, companionship, grooming, cosseting and non-reproductive sexual activity and so forth. Amongst some primates, 'alpha' males attempting to win acceptance into a kin-group actually 'court' mothers with infants - despite these females being unable or uninterested in mating, at that time. Such displays are public, and all females are watching carefully how he grooms and carries the infant, and most importantly the mother's response to having a strange male handle her baby. Such males are 'courting' the entire group of females, not an individual one. For it is acceptance and 'bonding' with the community that he is trying to win. Not the right to mate and rut to his heart's content. From the female's point-of-view she is not just accepting these males as terrific genetic repositories, but as member of the community and he is expected to contribute much more than some healthy sperm. To the female, these 'alpha' males are just another non-breeding female with some useful skills and abilities thrown in for defence, protection, assistance in child-raising, food-production and the day-to-day work and companionship of the group. Hence he is valued above and beyond the genetic component as he sticks around for the 'long-haul' contribution to the survival of the entire communal group, which is probably more important to the female's priority of reproduction than which male deposited his semen to 'sire' the infants. She won't always feed the genetic father of her child, but will feed the 'social' father. For humans however, we have hundreds of millennia of 'civilisation' layered on top of our original 'natural' reproductive strategies. Man&Woman-the thinkers, choosers, deciders have arranged their reproduction in a myriad of ways. One theory I have read, figures that the Ice-Ages would have decimated human populations to the point of near-extinction and hence the natural response of increasing numbers of hyperfertile males and their opportunity to reproduce resulted. At the end of the Ice-Age the then dominant males outnumbered females and broke the female-female 'bonds', replacing the role previously played by non-breeding females, and the hyper-fertile male has dominated in his biological drive to control reproduction ever since. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:16:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990310115333.007cf100@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Julieanne wrote: >> snip wonderful post << Time has guest editorials - this post would make a terrific rejoinder all on its own. > All mammals, being the definition of a mammal, bears live young after some > form of pregnancy, and lactates for varying lengths of time One irony I came across in doing an embryology study was that the all male group that created the classification of animals put humans higher on the evolutionary scale according to characteristics that were 100% female. According to one of the major classifications, separation of urinary and reproductive organs, the lofty men who created the divisions topped out at the invertibrate level (squids have the same setup), while female humans, chimps, rats and cats were several levels higher. :) :) :) Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:27:08 -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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990310115333.007cf100@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:53 AM 3/10/99 +1100, Julieanne wrote: >This is why all mammals are very 'social' animals, they live in groups - >herds, packs, prides of lions or hyenas, pods of whales and dolphins, >troops of baboons, kin or clan tribal groups, even humans until maybe a >century or so ago - mostly lived in large family compounds or households. This is a very inaccurate generalization, I'm afraid. A large number of mammal species are not "social" at all in the way lions, dolphins or humans are. >Amongst some primates, 'alpha' males attempting to win acceptance >into a kin-group actually 'court' mothers with infants - despite these >females being unable or uninterested in mating, at that time. Such >displays are public, and all females are watching carefully how he >grooms and carries the infant, and most importantly the mother's >response to having a strange male handle her baby. Which primates are you talking about? This certainly doesn't sound like the behavior of, frex, alpha male chimps, who are much more likely to kill unrelated babies than snuggle them. Bonobos, maybe? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Mercury Rev -- Deserter's Songs "...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: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 23:57:04 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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/10/99 4:35:52 AM, you wrote: <<>This is why all mammals are very 'social' animals, they live in groups - >herds, packs, prides of lions or hyenas, pods of whales and dolphins, >troops of baboons, kin or clan tribal groups, even humans until maybe a >century or so ago - mostly lived in large family compounds or households. >> "All mammals" is stretching it a lot. Felids, except for lions, tend to be solitary and the females take care of the young, indeed, run the males off. A true story I know is worth sharing. Happened in Arizona at the museum in the Southwest. They had a male bobcat in captivity. Discovered that the male was slipping in and out of the cage. Then one morning he was there, with a female companion. They (wisely to my mind) did nothing. Male and female ghosted in and out of the zoo for awhile; she was pregnant then had her kits in the cage. At which point she threw the male out and wouldn't let him back in... I never heard the end of the story. Did they ALL leave? Well maybe. Had a good guy curator at the time who got involved with the romance of the thing. But back to your point -- all mammals are not monogamous, tribal, in groups. Many, but certainly not all. And enough are not to say it isn't an experiment, like the platypus, it is a working out of traits and needs... I appreciate your thought. though. Many very "successful" mammal groups are those which have established family units and groups. And that is one reason that the wholesale slaughter of creatures affects their survival chances. Maybe this has something to do with Feminism.... Sperm whales are a matriarchy. It is so obvious that even open-boat whalers from the 19th century saw it. and what happened to the sperm whales was catastrophic. If anyone is interested in this, contact me off-list. Really doesn't obtain here. Done a lot of research about this. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:25:44 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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/99 8:35:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET writes: << alpha male chimps, >> OK, I don't need to be here because Julieanne is doing such a good job...but, on the chimps? The 'alpha' males only account for a portion of the live births. Over fifty percent of the live births (and I am not referring to Bonobo) are due to about 10% of the males...these are not even on the alpha scale. They bring the females gifts of food and groom them. When the female is in season, she wanders off with one of these social guys for a couple of weeks. Speaking of SF...I watched the TV version of Stargate just long enough once to hear one young man say that initially all sex was rape. Did anybody else see this episode? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:18:14 -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: Time Magazine article Thanks Julieanne for a very informative response to the Time article. Your comments go along very well with the History of Sex shows that play every once in a while on the Learning Channel (usually during some kind of rating period, there's nothing like sex to draw a crowd.) The courting the mother activities you described were shown very clearly with the male, was it a gorilla? I don't remember, caring very gently for offspring that obviously wasn't his. Breeding and non-breeding females being the essence of the community makes so much more sense than the conservatives' ideal of a daddy being necessary in every family. This is why I read feminist science fiction. Mainstream SF seems to just infuse gadgets into the present patriarchal system, which I don't think is going to withstand much more of the test of time. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:37:47 -0000 Reply-To: thomas@animal.u-net.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Goodey Subject: Male/female sex ratios in mammals (OT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990310115333.007cf100@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Another characteristic of all 'Natural' mammalian > populations, is the gender ratio. Most mammals keep > population in balance by favouring females, and having a > substantial sub-population of non-breeding females..... This is not correct, or at least not correctly put. Almost all creatures enjoy a 50:50 ratio between males and females. This despite the obvious fact that a much smaller number of males would suffice for reproductive purposes. As you can find out by reading Dawkins's "God's Utility Function", the basic reason for this is that evolution works on the individual level, or, exactly, on the level of the individual genome. In other words, in nature, it is not a case of one species competing against others and evolving, and it is not a case of one group competing against others and evolving. Rather it is a case of individuals competing against one another to leave descendants. That's why the long-term results of evolution may not be much use from the point of view of the survival of the group as a whole, indeed may be counterproductive. For example the elaborate efforts of bower-birds to build displays are only really useful for increasing reproductive success vis-a-vis other bower- birds; they waste a lot of effort and energy from the point of view of the species as a whole. The reason why this fact implies, in almost all cases, an equal male/female ratio, is that: in most species male and female children take substantially equal amounts of parental effort to produce to maturity; and each animal has one father and one mother. Therefore, if the current male/female ratio in a breeding population were (say) 10:90, a creature about to produce a child could ensure having far more ultimate descendants by producing a male rather than a female. Therefore the evolutionary pressure would be towards equalizing the ratio, so that would happen. The fact that only, say, 10% of males may father almost all the children has no effect upon the argument. T. Goodey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:53:17 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Time Magazine article In-Reply-To: <003201be6ace$8bc4f2a0$314b2599@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:18 AM 3/10/99 -0800, Joyce Jones wrote: >Thanks Julieanne for a very informative response to the Time article. Your >comments go along very well with the History of Sex shows that play every >once in a while on the Learning Channel (usually during some kind of rating >period, there's nothing like sex to draw a crowd.) The courting the mother >activities you described were shown very clearly with the male, was it a >gorilla? I don't remember, caring very gently for offspring that obviously >wasn't his. > The video film I saw during University studies was admittedly some years ago - but I remember the commercial film "Gorillas In The Mist" had been released around the same time. Most likely orangutan, native to Malaysia/Indonesia as the Uni group had recently returned from some months of field study there, and the film we were shown was part of their report. It sticks in my mind mostly, because it did focus on interactions between females much more than most animal behaviour studies seem to do. The scene of the male caring gently for an infant obviously not his own upon a rock ledge at the edge of thick forest, but then the camera panning to the surrounding background showing around 10 or so adult females very intent upon him and the mother. Anyway, the idea of the 'lone wolf' exiled from the maternal pack to make his way to 'win' acceptance into another pack, reminded me of all those "coming-of-age" stories that have been popular for centuries. All those heroic sagas and epics of the young man having to battle the odds, to win fame and fortune, and battle ogres and whatnot. Perhaps its a Jungian 'collective unconscious' thing?:) But back to sci-fi - I'm reminded of a book I read some years ago - I believe it was called something like "Island of Woman". I don't remember who wrote it, (possibly someone on the list knows of it?) Anyway, it was a speculative fictionalised account of the evolution of humanity from first walking upright migrating across the wilds, to discovering fire, developing language and so forth. At one point there was a really amusing scene of a pair of young men approaching a sea-shore tribe, trying to 'sell themselves' for acceptance and to be adopted into the tribe. Several of the women at the communal camp-fire started questioning the lads about their skills and abilities - making fire, or tools etc - I had to laugh as it read so much like a stone-age "job interview" LOL Cheers - Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 07:20:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990310115333.007cf100@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is a NEAT article! Mind if I pass it on? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:32:49 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Andrea Vaughn Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ---"Janice E. Dawley" wrote: > > At 11:53 AM 3/10/99 +1100, Julieanne wrote: > > >This is why all mammals are very 'social' animals, they live in groups - > >herds, packs, prides of lions or hyenas, pods of whales and dolphins, > >troops of baboons, kin or clan tribal groups, even humans until maybe a > >century or so ago - mostly lived in large family compounds or households. > > This is a very inaccurate generalization, I'm afraid. A large number of > mammal species are not "social" at all in the way lions, dolphins or humans > are. I thought that lions were the only species of cat that live in social groups. Tigers, panthers, mountain lions, all the way down to the domestic cat tend to be loners, don't they? Andrea Vaughn _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:54:34 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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain >From: Phoebe Wray >Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... >In a message dated 3/10/99 4:35:52 AM, you wrote: > ><<>This is why all mammals are very 'social' animals, they live in groups -[snip] >"All mammals" is stretching it a lot. Felids, except for lions, tend >to be >solitary and the females take care of the young, indeed, run the >males off. [snip] Even among our primate cousins, orangutans are not social at all -- IIRC the males maintain large territories and keep away from each other while the females are a bit more social (interestingly, they seem to have their own geography, which doesn't mesh up with the males' territories). Any anthropologists out there are welcome to correct my errors. There was a novel by Charles Oberndorf (can't think of the title) a while back that interestingly explored the lives of a group of "aliens" that were basically sentient orangs. >Maybe this has something to do with Feminism.... Sperm whales are a >matriarchy. It is so obvious that even open-boat whalers from the >19th century saw it. and what happened to the sperm whales was >catastrophic. If anyone is interested in this, contact me off-list. But surely this had more to do with sperm-oil being the premier lamp oil of the day, rather than some desire to destroy a seagoing matriarchy??? Danny Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:30:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: BDG Fisherman In-Reply-To: <199903090023.TAA10214@login1.fas.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >snipping some lovely quotations< > >I love LeGuin's use of language. She captures emotion and communication >and the *process* of communication and its lack, all oh so vividly for me. >And the worlds she creates work from the inside. Any old author, it seems >to me, can create a map and a bunch of place names and some rules for the >magic of a world (for example). But very few give their places souls. >She inhabits her worlds with real people, that I recognize as real not >because they are just like me but because though they are not, I am shown- >not-told about the differences. They are organic; they fit the landscape. > > >Claudia Claudia and others, Have you gotten to look at Le Guin's _Steering the Craft_? It's her 1998 collection of writing exercises. In it, she praises the individual voice and gives some good pointers on developing it. She's truly one of our best. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:34:54 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... In-Reply-To: <19990310143249.13926.rocketmail@send205.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:32 AM 3/10/99 -0800, Andrea Vaughn wrote: >---"Janice E. Dawley" wrote: >> >> At 11:53 AM 3/10/99 +1100, Julieanne wrote: >> >I thought that lions were the only species of cat that live in social >groups. Tigers, panthers, mountain lions, all the way down to the >domestic cat tend to be loners, don't they? Yes and no. Maybe. It depends. There are always exceptions, or 'outliers' to general "rules of thumb", and my earlier posting was more concerned with the "rule-of-thumb" of a whole class of creatures - as a way of providing some 'biological background info' in response to Sandy's questions about one of the points in the Time article, ie: about female promiscuity being reproductively advantageous:)) I really must *work* on my communication skills:) But oh well...in for a penny, in for a pound:) Generally speaking, the 'loner' types of mammals, (and the few who do M/F pair-bond temporarily or permanently), are predators, and/or at the top-of-the-food-chain species, often living in 'marginal' environments. Cat & dog species in rocky alpine environments, or long-winter climates, or dry deserts, for example. Bears as well. Predators are usually in smallish populations anyway, regardless of environment - and in 'marginal' eco-systems, the dominant top-of-the-food-chain predator species' is smaller still. This is because most species in such 'hard-living' environments are on "minimum rations" including the prey, and plants. Predator birds such as eagles, and reptiles also. So their reproductive rates are also relatively low, higher infant mortality & lower survival rates of litters etc, compared to the communal populations of such species. Wolves are a good example of environmentally 'adaptive' strategies - in the arctic north, the wolf is a 'loner' or at most in a breeding pair-bond with relatively large territories. In milder southern climes, with more prey to go around, they prefer communal packs. The 'loner' wolves successful breeding rates are relatively low. This is one of the reasons, such animals are often found in the category of 'endangered'. Some of the south-american cats are dying out because of the low size of the 'wild' gene pool, and whilst their environments havent changed so much, their reproduction rates fell below the minimum necessary to maintain sufficient genetic variation, and 'in-breeding' problems resulted. As for domestic cats, the few dozen I grew up with were exceptionally 'communal' in our farm sheds and we left them to breed as they would - sometimes swapping the tom-cats with neighbours toms to encourage a little diversity. Sometimes we had to castrate, or kill some of the toms, as too many toms led to aggression and fighting amongst themselves. The girl-cats were the more 'friendly' though:) It was mostly wheat, sheep, and cattle-grazing country and subject to periodic rodent plagues. The cats nested communally quite happily in the sheds, and being nocturnal hunters kept the fields and sheds clear. In the home we had two wonderful naturally 'house-trained' lizards. Never did figure out what sex they were. They kept the house clear of mice and insects anyway:) Which I'm sure you are all over-awed to hear about:) LOL with *tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek* Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:12:07 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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/10/99 6:43:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, solianq@YAHOO.COM writes: << domestic cat tend to be loners, don't they? >> Domestic cats when given a chance also live in groups...groups of females with young. In both the studies I know of (cats and lions) this is thought to be so the females can protect the young from attacks by predatory males. And...you know, a cat with kittens is a social group. The female may take care of the young for a season or (with bears and elephants) for several years. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:34:57 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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11 Mar 99, at 5:34, Julieanne wrote: > Generally speaking, the 'loner' types of mammals, (and the > few who do M/F pair-bond temporarily or permanently), are > predators, and/or at the top-of-the-food-chain species, > often living in 'marginal' environments. As a matter of fact that's not true at all even as a general rule. I've just been through a work on mammals of the Kruger National Park (an extremely large Nature Reserve in Southern Africa); a majority (by number of species) are solitary or in m/f pairs. The animals you've mentioned are relatively large; consider the smaller ones like the squirrels, the moles, the porcupines, rats and mice ... Many genera have both gregarious and solitary species. The ratio of solitary/gregarious species must, I would think, be particularly skewed in North America. > Cat & dog species in rocky alpine environments, or > long-winter climates, or dry deserts, for example. > Bears as well. Predators are usually in smallish populations > anyway, regardless of environment - and in 'marginal' > eco-systems, the dominant top-of-the-food-chain predator > species' is smaller still. There are plenty of areas where both herbivorous and carnivorous 'loners' and 'joiners' live in the middle of plenty. Any one who's been to Africa can tell you that. The Serengeti for example or Kruger where one can in much the same country see leopards and lions, solitary jackals and pack-hunting hyaenas, bat-eared foxes and wild dogs, giraffes and massive herds of impala, the solitary rhino and the elephant herds. The reasons for animals joining (permanently or opportunistically) in packs or herds for cooperation during hunting / feeding is much complex than appears on surface. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:22:30 -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: Slightly OT?: Time Magazine article... In-Reply-To: <31af68f9.36e6d217@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:12 PM 3/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 3/10/99 6:43:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, solianq@YAHOO.COM >writes: > ><< domestic cat tend to be loners, don't they? >> > >Domestic cats when given a chance also live in groups...groups of females with >young. In both the studies I know of (cats and lions) this is thought to be >so the females can protect the young from attacks by predatory males. > >And...you know, a cat with kittens is a social group. The female may take >care of the young for a season or (with bears and elephants) for several >years. > >Madrone I've also read that domestic cats live more healthy lives when in multiple cat households. They are happier and get more exercise from playing with one another. Cats living alone become sick more often, and they become lonely and frustrated. I figure there are those out there who might doubt the more psychological aspects of this, but having had both solitary and multiple cat households, I can vouch for the difference. :) Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:52:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Armstrong Subject: Baboons (re: Time Magazine article) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >The courting the mother >activities you described were shown very clearly with the male, was it a >gorilla? I don't remember, caring very gently for offspring that obviously >wasn't his. Baboons? AFAIK among at least some baboon species, it's in the interest of young males, or males new to the troop, to behave as "gentlemen" (in the baboon sense) toward resident females and their dependent children. Solicitous toward the females, gentle with the babies. (A male may focus on one female; I can't remember for sure) The evolutionary reason is supposed to be that this gentlemanly behaviour inclines the female to accept him as her mate, next time she is ready. Of course, males need to learn the niceties. There's some amusing film footage of young inexperienced males trying to cuddle babies, fumbling with them, holding them upside down etc., and looking quite embarrassed when the babies scream in protest. -- Susan Armstrong anariska@smartt.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:17:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Baboons (re: Time Magazine article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990310225223.007d0ea0@mail.smartt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Susan Armstrong wrote: > Of course, males need to learn the niceties. There's some amusing film > footage of young inexperienced males trying to cuddle babies, fumbling with > them, holding them upside down etc., and looking quite embarrassed when the > babies scream in protest. > Yes. Every human society I've ever heard of - and some groups today considered by outsiders to be into nothing but role-playing - have a way of teaching young males the ropes. Young females sometimes have them and sometimes are assumed to have learned from their mothers. Hence squiredom, warrior training, initiation, etc...> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:21:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: brahms Subject: Re: Monkeys & Monkees (re: Time Magazine article) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990310225223.007d0ea0@mail.smartt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Those of you who are interested in primate biology, evolution, and behavior may want to take a look at Donna Haraway's Primate Visions (if you haven't come across it already). The book is an important reminder that science is always also narrative. Stories we tell about ourselves, our societies, and our world. What we observe of animal behavior is always filtered through our perceptions of our own lives under patriarchy. Primates in particular, being so close to us evolutionarily, seem to inspire complex narratives (both in popular culture and in academia) about gender, race, sexuality, and what it means to be human ("pair bonding", "alpha males", animal "families", etc.)There are also sections on Diane Fossey & that other one whats-her-name, in case anyone is interested. Somehow this all reminds me of that show "The Monkees" (back in the 70's? rerun on nickelodeon in the 80's), you know where the band members were impersonated by chimps running around in ridiculous little outfits & "playing" instruments & chewing pieces of gum so as to give the impression that they were talking .... what a bizarre show. Could it qualify as SF? Now I'm really off topic... -Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:31:02 -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: Monkeys & Monkees (re: Time Magazine article) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------11C938447F31D3DFB5E52006" --------------11C938447F31D3DFB5E52006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See also The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. brahms wrote: > Those of you who are interested in primate biology, evolution, and behavior > may want to take a look at Donna Haraway's Primate Visions (if you haven't > come across it already). > > The book is an important reminder that science is always also narrative. > Stories we tell about ourselves, our societies, and our world. What we > observe of animal behavior is always filtered through our perceptions of our > own lives under patriarchy. Primates in particular, being so close to us > evolutionarily, seem to inspire complex narratives (both in popular culture > and in academia) about gender, race, sexuality, and what it means to be > human ("pair bonding", "alpha males", animal "families", etc.)There are also > sections on Diane Fossey & that other one whats-her-name, in case anyone is > interested. > > Somehow this all reminds me of that show "The Monkees" (back in the 70's? > rerun on nickelodeon in the 80's), you know where the band members were > impersonated by chimps running around in ridiculous little outfits & > "playing" instruments & chewing pieces of gum so as to give the impression > that they were talking .... what a bizarre show. Could it qualify as SF? > > Now I'm really off topic... > > -Rachel --------------11C938447F31D3DFB5E52006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See also The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.

brahms wrote:

Those of you who are interested in primate biology, evolution, and behavior
may want to take a look at Donna Haraway's Primate Visions (if you haven't
come across it already).

The book is an important reminder that science is always also narrative.
Stories we tell about ourselves, our societies, and our world.  What we
observe of animal behavior is always filtered through our perceptions of our
own lives under patriarchy.  Primates in particular, being so close to us
evolutionarily, seem to inspire complex narratives (both in popular culture
and in academia) about gender, race, sexuality, and what it means to be
human ("pair bonding", "alpha males", animal "families", etc.)There are also
sections on Diane Fossey & that other one whats-her-name, in case anyone is
interested.

Somehow this all reminds me of that show "The Monkees" (back in the 70's?
rerun on nickelodeon in the 80's), you know where the band members were
impersonated by chimps running around in ridiculous little outfits &
"playing" instruments & chewing pieces of gum so as to give the impression
that they were talking .... what a bizarre show. Could it qualify as SF?

Now I'm really off topic...

-Rachel

--------------11C938447F31D3DFB5E52006-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:39:47 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Monkeys & Reflections on Science In-Reply-To: <000101be6c15$e418dbe0$01b02399@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:21 PM 3/11/99 -0800, brahms wrote: >Those of you who are interested in primate biology, evolution, and behavior >may want to take a look at Donna Haraway's Primate Visions (if you haven't >come across it already). > >The book is an important reminder that science is always also narrative. >Stories we tell about ourselves, our societies, and our world. What we >observe of animal behavior is always filtered through our perceptions of our >own lives under patriarchy. (snip) So are religious stories - someone once told me that the Bible was the 'bestseller' novel of all time:) But scientific observations are always filtered through our own perceptions - I can't recall who or when it was said, that 'The Observer alters/changes what he Observes" - Plato??? Something about standing in a river, changing the perceived 'reality' of the river? Sometimes I think we humans prefer the beauty and "rightness" and 'symmetry' of the simple and the familiar. Like learning algebra. We start off with linear algebra. Nice straight lines from Point A to Point B. Later on we learn, that adding variables in algebra leads to curves, dips, stops and starts, and sometimes it never gets there at all. At this point many students drop algebra. It's too complicated. It's not 'neat-and-tidy' and 'straight and clear' anymore. Sometimes one plus one doesn't equal two. The early models of planetary motion were simple models of the 'harmony of the spheres'. Sure, symmetrical and simple. Beautiful. Looked 'right'. Felt 'right'. Perfect circles within circles. Wheels within wheels. Despite the models being wrong, they gave correct answers to predicting the motion of the planets. Most of the time. Perhaps the wrong mathematics sometimes give the right answers anyway?? Only later on, did we learn that the planets didn't move in this perfect, symmetrical way. They curve and dip. Sometimes they even wobble. Sometimes one plus one, refuses to add up to two. Similarly with biology and evolutionary theory. Darwin's survival of the fittest, and Mendel's now-called 'classic' inheritance of chromosome-gene pairing, sounds 'right'. Simple 'symmetry' of either/or. With male and female being the 'symmetrical' halves of the equation: M + F = N (where N = 'offspring') It all 'balances' and 'fits' our preferred perceptions of how the world works. One plus one always equals two. One of the first anomalies which called these biological theories into question, came with bacteria. Bugs don't have gender. Bugs don't 'mate'. Bugs just duplicate their DNA, and then there are two. Nice, neat, simple and symmetrical. Predicts nicely the Standard exponential curve of bacterial growth. Most of the time. We can see it and "observe" with our own eyes under the microscope the process of a bug splitting into two. One plus one equals two. Later on we found that bacteria do have a 'mating' process. Sometimes across species. And what could be conceptually phrased as 'gender'. Four 'genders'. Sometimes the neat-and-tidy exponential curves didn't "come out right". Sometimes they wobble. Sometimes they go off at unexpected tangents. We blamed ourselves. Faulty equipment. Errors in calculations. We humans don't like to think that, sometimes, one plus one, refuses to add up to two. Observers of animal behaviour study a 'loner' species for many years. They note that the males of this species are fiercely territorial, but females appear to wander at random and 'freely' through any male's territory at any time, whether in 'season' or not. Therefore, ergo, henceforth, the logic tells us that only males of this species are territorial. They write huge tomes on the mating patterns of this species. They recommend boundaries for a wildlife reserve for this species based on their observations of male territiorial boundaries and female migration through them. It 'fits'. It 'balances' up symmetrical. Male plus Female equals Offspring. This species stopped breeding afterwards. We blamed faulty equipment. Errors in calculations. We checked our radio-tracer readouts and raw data, over and over again. We did autopsies and checked for an unknown epidemic disease. We took more intensive investigations into their food sources. It didn't make sense. One plus one was not adding up to two. Turned out females were also territorial, but in a far more complicated way than the more 'visible',simple, straight and clear, neat-and-tidy male territorial boundaries. Females had migration behaviour patterns through the male's territorial grounds, as well as their own, that were unrelated to mating behaviour. We assumed that their behaviour was related to mating. Why else would females be wandering freely through male's territory? Anyway - 'There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio' - and more often than we may know, it just doesn't "add-up" the way we expect it to. Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:31:54 -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: BDG results: Grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I also know I can get ahold of several (probably more than several) copies at Powell's, if anyone still needs one; just send me mail. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Big Yellow Woman [mailto:shericks@PEOPLE-LINK.COM] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 4:55 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG results: Grass Claudia Mastroianni wrote: > > Tyler told me that he's been trying to get Grass for a while, that > he'll try direct from the publisher instead of his usual distributor, > but that he suspects it's out of print. Given that Amazon lists it > I wouldn't normally worry, but they *do* have that special surcharge > listed. So I'm wondering whether anyone knows any more about the > situation with this book. I can probably pick up a few copies of _Grass_ at my used bookstore between now and then, probably about $3 a piece plus a little postage to mail them out, if there are many takers. Just respond to me (and send your snailmail)and I'll see what I can turn up! (Sorry but it's usually hard to find any of the newer books there, or Butler for some reason). Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:02:00 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mysterious Galaxy Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 11 Mar 1999 to 12 Mar 1999 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is it just me, or are we doing the books slightly out of order? GRASS, *TO SAY NOTHING..., *SLOW RIVER and then WILD SEED. Doesn't S come before T most places? Maryelizabeth thrilled by all the choices, but hoping THE GILDA STORIES makes it next time! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:10:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: CRONES - Update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CRONES are on Chapter 8 of WAWFF this month. (front page will be updated shortly) For those who are looking for a place to consider, discuss, vent or rant women and economics, join us. We are at: http://www.breakingset.org/ For those relatively new listers, CRONES is a web site created to be an online venue for the discussion of Joanna Russ' latest collection of essays: _What Are We Fighting For?_ donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:48:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Female man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D503A347F63C39835E17DAF9" --------------D503A347F63C39835E17DAF9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If anyone is still looking for copies, the Beacon paperback (#78351X) is being remaindered @ $4.95 by Edward R. Hamilton (bookseller), Falls River CT 06031-5000. Each order costs $3 shipping and handling, no matter how many books. Also on the 5 March list Just an Ordinary Day by Shirley Jackson ("stories from recently discovered manuscripts edited by her childen"). --------------D503A347F63C39835E17DAF9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If anyone is still looking for copies, the Beacon paperback (#78351X) is being remaindered @ $4.95 by Edward R. Hamilton (bookseller), Falls River CT 06031-5000.  Each order costs $3 shipping and handling, no matter how many books.  Also on the 5 March list Just an Ordinary Day by Shirley Jackson ("stories from recently discovered manuscripts edited by her childen"). --------------D503A347F63C39835E17DAF9--