From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thu Apr 15 13:59:06 1999 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:26:38 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9904B" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:04:42 EDT Reply-To: Kevin7634@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kevin Henderson Subject: Re: REMOVE ME OFF YOUR LIST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit do not email me ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:28:40 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: technobabble/Weber Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I too had problems with the first book in the HONOR series--the huge chunks of hardware being explained in excruciating detail. But I was intrigued enough by the premise to grit my teeth and get through it (skimming large parts)--in many cases, the hardware does play a part in the plot development (though I don't think it's ever ipmortant enough to justify the HUGE amount of space he devotes to it). Apparently that's just something he as an author (and I assume a goodly number of his readers) enjoy being explained in great detail. Something else that bothers me a bit is the way he describes the violence done when the Big Ships collide or fight (very quantitative--the whatchamacallit hits and X people die and X are wounded and so on). But the overall storyarc, the character of Honor and of course the treecats (which are playing a larger part in the later novels), seem to have hooked me. I enjoy them as relaxation reading. I could do with a little less political didacticism (STAR KINGDOM BASED ON MONARCHY WHICH SOMETIMES RECOGNIZES MERIT AND TRIES TO PROMOTE GOOD NOBILITY IS GOOD while DEMOCRATIC BUT CORRUPTED WELFARE STATE EXTRAPOLATED FROM CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF U.S. POLICIES IS BAD). I always find it amazing (I don't know why, should be used to it now) that feminist authors get trashed for overt discussion of politics from the "Other's" viewpoint while male authors can pull off this sort of political commentary and apparently never have it commented on in any way disapprovingly. The good news is that after you read a couple you sort of internalize the basic technical information (which does seem to be worked out more realistically than the TREKKIE technobabble) and it doesn't seem to intrude as much as you skim over it. (Does anyone on the list really LOVE that sort of thing and READ it carefully and in great detail? The other thing it reminded me of was gaming situation where people had to work that all out for the game to work.) Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:09:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Powers Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <199904081328.NAA06715@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I always find it amazing (I don't know why, >should be used to it now) that feminist authors get trashed for overt >discussion of politics from the "Other's" viewpoint while male authors can >pull off this sort of political commentary and apparently never have it >commented on in any way disapprovingly....(SNIP) (Does anyone on >the list really LOVE that sort of thing and READ it carefully and in great >detail? The other thing it reminded me of was gaming situation where people >had to work that all out for the game to work.) > >Robin I'm new to posting, so be kind! I tried the Harrington series because a friend is majorly hooked on them. In the spirit of full disclosure I will admit that this is the first sci-fi by a male author that I have read since DUNE and the FOUNDATION series, back when I was a teenager. I will not tell you how long ago THAT was. I must say that I did enjoy the technobabble, because I think that Weber's accomplishment in these books is the translation of 19th c. naval technology and warfare into space. What I am much less happy about in the books is the, IMHO, unbelievably simplified and almost caricatured exploration of politics. Also, I was surprised by what I can only describe as an awkward sentimentality in the books. Now I am by no means a reader who prefers science fiction that is all about machines and not about people and societies... in fact, I'd say my prejudice is for exactly the opposite. But Weber has all of these Significant Moments in which stout-hearted officers Share An Understanding through Meaningful Looks and handshakes. Finally, though many women are in positions of authority in the Manticoran forces, something about the workings of gender in the books bugs me, and I'd be pleased to know if someone can put their finger on what it is. The whole Grayson planet stuff freaked me out, to put it unscientifically. There's my two cents. :-) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:21:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yup. Archangel, Jovah's Angel, and The Alleluia Files are heavily romance, generally from a female perspective, about humans on another world, some of whom have been genetically altered to have wings (the "angels"), so they can fly close to "Jovah" (their starship, though they don't know that), which is orbiting earth, waiting to hear them sing their requests (rain, sun, seeds, medicine, etc.). Absolutely wonderful world-building. In the first book, the only reason you know it's not just some weird alternate earth with "angels" is the forward, which mentions that Jovah is a starship (and some people I've seen review it missed that completely, and thought it was pure romance); the second two get more into the ship and technology. -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Big Yellow Woman [mailto:shericks@PEOPLE-LINK.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 8:10 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Jaran > > > Sandy wrote: > > > > I hope Sharon Shinn's books are on that list of yours as > well! I've > > absolutely LOVED those books! :) > > > Do you mean she writes sci-fi/romance? > > Susan > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:47:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:28 PM 8/04/99 GMT, you wrote: >I too had problems with the first book in the HONOR series--the huge chunks >of hardware being explained in excruciating detail. But I was intrigued >enough by the premise to grit my teeth and get through it (skimming large >parts)--in many cases, the hardware does play a part in the plot development >(though I don't think it's ever ipmortant enough to justify the HUGE amount >of space he devotes to it). Apparently that's just something he as an >author (and I assume a goodly number of his readers) enjoy being explained >in great detail. I realise it is personal, but I honestly don't see why so many people are attracted to the doohickeys and gadgets of the SF universe. I know it's ostensibly there for realism (though in reality, if anyone started going on and on ad nauseum about pinnaces and whatchamacallits, I'd probably just ask them to spare me the details and get on with the anecdote), but really, what _is_ the appeal of tech-SF? It's just a dull distraction from the characters and events, which is what every good story should focus on. If I want endless pages of tech, I'll go read the UNIX manual. Something else that bothers me a bit is the way he >describes the violence done when the Big Ships collide or fight (very >quantitative--the whatchamacallit hits and X people die and X are wounded >and so on). Well, that I can deal with, if it contributes to the realism of the story. I can't really judge, though, as I'm only on page 160 at the moment (and thus far, very little is happening other than Honor coming, seeing, and kicking some smuggler ass, so to speak). But the overall storyarc, the character of Honor and of course >the treecats (which are playing a larger part in the later novels), seem to >have hooked me. I enjoy them as relaxation reading. Yeah, I have to admit, Honor herself (despite her almost inhuman infallibilty) is growing on me, and I am an avowed fan of Space Opera, so I think I really am going to have to give the series more of a chance. Though at this stage, I find I'm constantly dreading turning another page and finding myself confronted with another six pages of tech... I could do with a >little less political didacticism (STAR KINGDOM BASED ON MONARCHY WHICH >SOMETIMES RECOGNIZES MERIT AND TRIES TO PROMOTE GOOD NOBILITY IS GOOD while >DEMOCRATIC BUT CORRUPTED WELFARE STATE EXTRAPOLATED FROM CONSERVATIVE VIEW >OF U.S. POLICIES IS BAD). I always find it amazing (I don't know why, >should be used to it now) that feminist authors get trashed for overt >discussion of politics from the "Other's" viewpoint while male authors can >pull off this sort of political commentary and apparently never have it >commented on in any way disapprovingly. Oh, I don't know. Seems to me that a lot of female authors have actually gotten away with a lot more subversive stuff than male authors have. Compare, for example, Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" which still gets condemned for its drugs, sex, cannibalism, etc (most of this due to the unfortunate publicity given it by Charles Manson). Whereas Tanith Lee's "Vivia" contains some of the most viscerally repulsive and emotionally disturbing material I've ever read in any genre, and yet, not too many people have even heard of this novel. Maybe it's because male SF authors are under more scrutiny; I don't know. I mean, I've read novels by female authors that would have been amazingly controversial had male authors written them. The good news is that after you >read a couple you sort of internalize the basic technical information (which >does seem to be worked out more realistically than the TREKKIE technobabble) Well, yeah, but tech's tech. See, in RL, I'm one of those techno-doofuses who doesn't care how something works as long as it works. To me, all technobabble sounds the same, whether it's legitimate or "hey, readers, I had to work this problem out _somehow_" phony tech. You could tell me that the entire NASA control panel is hooked up to a Vogon scromet and powered by isotropic algorithms, and I'd nod and smile politely. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:17:23 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <199904081410.KAA06547@hulaw5.law.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Laura Powers wrote: > I must say that I did enjoy the technobabble, because I think that Weber's > accomplishment in these books is the translation of 19th c. naval > technology and warfare into space. What I am much less happy about in the > books is the, IMHO, unbelievably simplified and almost caricatured > exploration of politics. Yeah no kidding. I'm an Honor Harrington fan, at least I think I still am, although after "In Enemy Hands" it's going to be tricky to keep me going. Also, after "In Enemy Hands" it's difficult to refer to the exploration of politics in the series as "almost caricatured"--there's no "almost" involved. The political machinations in that book can be best described as "beating us over the head with a klunky redo of the French Revolution". I mean, really, Rob Pierre? > Finally, though many women are in positions of authority in the Manticoran > forces, something about the workings of gender in the books bugs me, and > I'd be pleased to know if someone can put their finger on what it is. The > whole Grayson planet stuff freaked me out, to put it unscientifically. I actually found Grayson interesting, at least in part because it was so terrifying. David Weber is fairly un-subtle, and it's clear that he believes women are going to succeed only when they can do the job as well as men. By extension it looks like he's saying women currently don't succeed equally because they don't do the job as well, but I'm don't know if that's what he actually thinks. I know that -I- think that's horribly flawed thinking, but whatever. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You are also devoted to your dog who has been dead for 23 years. And you named him Cholmondeley. Warm and loyal soul though you may be, you obviously have a weakness for eccentrics. --Miss Manners ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:19:49 -0700 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: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 99 12:17:23 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Finally, though many women are in positions of authority in the Manticoran > forces, something about the workings of gender in the books bugs me, and > I'd be pleased to know if someone can put their finger on what it is. The > whole Grayson planet stuff freaked me out, to put it unscientifically. The flaw that I see is that Weber is so resolutely egalitarian-in-place. There's no real analysis of how true egalitarianism would affect the existing structure of society. Now, we all know that this is a sort of demanding requirement for self-styled military-history-space-opera, and I don't let it bug me too much. In fact, I read *all* the Honor Harrington books in March, all in a row, and so I just decided to get into the spirit of things and stop paying attention to the things that I didn't like. (I think his editor needs to be much fiercer with him about things like repeating words, for instance.) However. On occasion this lack of analysis really jolts me, because the background culture is inconsistent. The example that most bothered me was when some Manticoran Admiral referred to a man as "an old woman--saving your presence, Honor." The term "old woman" as I've heard it is used to refer to a weak, cowardly *man*, with the term "woman" being part of the insult; and that's basically the way it was used here. In the society that Weber describes, the phrase shouldn't have the meaning it does. As I said, these are minor things. I like watching Weber's women kick butt. The books just don't stand up to a detailed feminist analysis. :) >I actually found Grayson interesting, at least in part because it was >so terrifying. David Weber is fairly un-subtle, and it's clear that >he believes women are going to succeed only when they can do the job >as well as men. By extension it looks like he's saying women >currently don't succeed equally because they don't do the job as well, >but I'm don't know if that's what he actually thinks. Though he does repeatedly show Grayson men talking about how they don't give women the opportunity to prove themselves, even when they think they're being wholly fair. Again, not a sophisticated analysis, and I can barely stand to read the later books' bizarre mish-mash of the French Revolution (there are more repeated names than Rob S. Pierre; Saint-Just heads the Committee of Public Safety again) and zingers to US politics. Oh well. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:44:52 -0500 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: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <199904081547.KAA85084@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Santanico says: >I realise it is personal, but I honestly don't see why so many people are >attracted to the doohickeys and gadgets of the SF universe. I know it's >ostensibly there for realism (though in reality, if anyone started going on >and on ad nauseum about pinnaces and whatchamacallits, I'd probably just ask >them to spare me the details and get on with the anecdote), but really, what >_is_ the appeal of tech-SF? . Don't know whether this is an innately gender-related trait or not, but it's clear that such things are more likely to appeal to men than women (with plenty of obvious exceptions). Still, it isn't really something you can argue with. If technical details appeal to you, they do and if they don't, they don't. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, better or worse. As a kid I always found the technical details interesting, whether they were in the science fiction of Heinlein or the adventure fiction of C. S. Forester. As an adult, I found the enormously technical discussions of whaling and its hardware every bit as riveting as the main plot of Moby Dick, still one of my favorite novels. Many of my students are technical people and I often find it fascinating to listen to them describe the details of how you run a CAD CAM program, or prepare and put up dry wall, or cook a gourmet meal, especially if they love what they're talking about and talk about it with enthusiasm. I don't particularly get off on the detail some writers put into their descriptions of weaponry--the whole pornography of violence bit--but I was fascinated by, for example. Lois Bujold's descriptions of structural engineering in Falling Free or Gregory Benford's descriptions of how a scientist actually does a physics experiment in Cosm or, again, the technical detail on running a spaceship in Weber. >It's just a dull distraction from the characters >and events, which is what every good story should focus on. If I want >endless pages of tech, I'll go read the UNIX manual. Not to disagree with you about the importance of characters and events, which are important, but setting, theme and style are also important. You're defining "every good story" as being identical with those elements of literary form which you personally prefer. Some readers find character less interesting and are more centered on style or theme. Concentration on any of these things can produce great fiction (or lousy fiction) of various sorts. I would guess that those people who like the tech side of science fiction are more interested than you are in certain aspects of setting, style and theme which depend on or even grow out of those technical elements which leave you cold. Please note: this is not a criticism of your taste. I'm just pointing out that tastes do differ. Excuse me--I have to go destabilize my Z1364 webrotators now, so as to avoid a melt down in the G398 microanalyzer attached to my copy of Moby Dick. 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: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:02:50 +0100 Reply-To: simondonna@kbnet.co.uk Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Simon & Donna Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is this book still in print? It sounds very interesting. I looked on Amazon and a couple of other book sites with no luck, Donna England ---------- > From: Laurel A. Lamme > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles > Date: 06 April 1999 20:12 > > >Wow! I just finished reading this very big, very rich novel by Elisabeth > >Vonarburg. I think it sometimes get translated as *In the Mother's > >Country* as well as *The Maerlande Chronicles*. > > > >Has anyone read this? I'd love to chat about it... > > I read this book as part of a course on Language and Gender. I agree that > it is a wonderful book with enough to discuss for months. > > > >I'm intrigued by the last narrator, who has transcended time. I suppose > >rereading the novel would clarify this person's identity. Is the > >voice in the last chapter Linta? An anonymous (incognito) voice of > >divinity? A metafictional voice/the ultimate storyteller? > > > >I like the destabilizing nature of the last chapter, but I'm also > >frustrated by it...I'd be grateful to anyone who could make it all clear > >(although the book was great, I'm not sure I want to reread!) > > > >pamela bedore > >department of english > >simon fraser university > > > > ************Spoiler Alert******************* > > > I would not like to claim to make the book "all clear," but it was my > impression that the narrator of the last chapter was Kelys, now in the shape > of a male, and still looking after the "childreen of Garde," some of which > she had actually sired. > > Laurel Lamme > lalamme@ufl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:03:50 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Seren Subject: Re: Honor Harrington's techie scenes In-Reply-To: <199904071643.LAA58252@piglet.cc.uic.edu> from "Santanico" at Apr 7, 99 11:43:35 am Content-Type: text > At 10:41 AM 7/04/99 -0500, Santanico wrote: > > Am I the only person in the world who just can't get into this series? I > mean, no offense to anyone who is, but it's just so...technobabbly. Or at > least the one I'm attempting to read at the moment, "On Basilisk Station" > (the first one in the series, and the only one I've ever read) is. I mean, > how many pages are devoted to nothing but tech, or characters talking and > thinking in technical terms? > Hmmm. I haven't read any more of David Weber's stuff than the first 3 chapters of On Basilisk Station that appear on Tor's (?) website. But I agree on the technobabble - I just skimmed it, partly because it looked like such a *contrived* way to get 18th century naval battles into Space - if I want to read that, I'll go to Patrick O'Brian, who can actually *write*. > I realise it's purely personal - a lot of people like technical SF, I don't > - but still, I can't help but feel that perhaps I'm missing something here. Hmm, I tend to think of myself as liking technical SF, but perhaps I'm using a slightly different definition. I don't like technowank, where there isn't actually any *substance* to all the pages of babble, no underlying structure, nothing. That kind of stuff just pushes my Trying Far Too Hard To Impress buttons. I don't mind lots of tech, or characters talking and thinking in technical terms, but my ability to stomach this varies according to the plausibility of the tech - if it's just contrived flim-flam, then for gods sake don't shove it right up in my face till I can't help but notice the holes. If there's something solid there to play with, then I like watching the author play around with it. And I especially like reading about characters figuring stuff out, if done convincingly. seren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:13:54 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Apr 1999 to 7 Apr 1999 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought folks might be interested in the following aticle, by feminist and doctoral holder Jennifer Cruise. http://www.rwanational.com/crusiearticle.htm Her take on romance closely mirrors my own, except for her take on adultery, which has always bothered me. However, I do agree with her that the Scarlet Letter is hardly a "feminist" work. She hits it right on the head, though, with the following: Excerpted from "Let Us Now Praise Scribbling Women," by Jennifer Cruise. Historically, one of the most devastating moves patriarchal culture has made has been the derision and resulting division of women's communities. That derision is overwhelmingly present in the critical treatment of romance fiction today which almost invariably focuses on the genre as a whole rather than individual works. Imagine an intellectually honest critic saying "All literary fiction is bad" without ever having read widely in literary fiction. Yet people who have never read romance fiction routinely ridicule not only the entire genre but the women who are brave enough to admit to reading it. =That ridicule is a political act, taking our stories from us.= [emphasis mine] We need to embrace our need for stories that privilege love and promise hope for that emotionally just universe, but more than that we need to take back our pride in "women's fiction," women's love stories, women's words, our pride in reading and being "d____d scribbling women." If we can do that, we'll not only be celebrating women's history, we'll be celebrating our future and ourselves, too. ---------- Catherine again: Also, Paradoxa, the academic journal that publishes analyses of various genres, had an entire issue devoted to feminism and the romance genre. Although some of the articles are negative, the majority of them discuss how romance promotes feminism. It's a fascinating study of the genre. The journal is: =Paradoxa, Studies in World Literary Genres,= subtitled, =Where's Love Gone?: Transformations in the Romance Genre,= Vol. 3, No. 1-2, 1997 -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:13:19 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Footnote: I'm not at all convinced that technical details are only interesting to men. I have both male and female students who abhor math and science, but I also direct a certificate program in technical communications, where women outnumber men about 3 to 1. In their pre-admissions interviews, they profess interest in the nitty-gritty (from cars to computers) as well as in the chance to make a living with their writing skills. I believe women make up well over half of the technical writers in the USA today. (On the other hand, when I revived my class in science fiction last semester, only one woman finished out of ten--the ratio used to be 50-50 in a class of 20-25, but even that is a higher percentage of males than in most literature classes). Michael Marc Levy wrote: > >Santanico says: > > >I realise it is personal, but I honestly don't see why so many people are > >attracted to the doohickeys and gadgets of the SF universe. I know it's > >ostensibly there for realism (though in reality, if anyone started going on > >and on ad nauseum about pinnaces and whatchamacallits, I'd probably just ask > >them to spare me the details and get on with the anecdote), but really, what > >_is_ the appeal of tech-SF? . > > Don't know whether this is an innately gender-related trait or not, but > it's clear that such things are more likely to appeal to men than women > (with plenty of obvious exceptions). > > Still, it isn't really something you can argue with. If technical details > appeal to you, they do and if they don't, they don't. It isn't a matter > of right or wrong, better or worse. As a kid I always found the technical > details interesting, whether they were in the science fiction of Heinlein > or the adventure fiction of C. S. Forester. As an adult, I found the > enormously technical discussions of whaling and its hardware every bit > as riveting as the main plot of Moby Dick, still one of my favorite novels. > > Many of my students are technical people and I often find it fascinating > to listen to them describe the details of how you run a CAD CAM program, > or prepare and put up dry wall, or cook a gourmet meal, especially if > they love what they're talking about and talk about it with enthusiasm. > > I don't particularly get off on the detail some writers put into their > descriptions of weaponry--the whole pornography of violence bit--but I > was fascinated by, for example. Lois Bujold's descriptions of structural > engineering in Falling Free or Gregory Benford's descriptions of how a > scientist actually does a physics experiment in Cosm or, again, the > technical detail on running a spaceship in Weber. > > >It's just a dull distraction from the characters > >and events, which is what every good story should focus on. If I want > >endless pages of tech, I'll go read the UNIX manual. > > Not to disagree with you about the importance of characters and events, > which are important, but setting, theme and style are also important. > You're defining "every good story" as being identical with those elements > of literary form which you personally prefer. Some readers find character > less interesting and are more centered on style or theme. Concentration > on any of these things can produce great fiction (or lousy fiction) of > various sorts. > > I would guess that those people who like the tech side of science > fiction are more interested than you are in certain aspects of setting, > style and theme which depend on or even grow out of those technical > elements which leave you cold. Please note: this is not a criticism of > your taste. I'm just pointing out that tastes do differ. > > Excuse me--I have to go destabilize my Z1364 webrotators now, so as to > avoid a melt down in the G398 microanalyzer attached to my copy of Moby Dick. > > 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: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:51:08 EDT Reply-To: Kevin7634@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kevin Henderson Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber remove me off your list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit take me off your list ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:14:21 -0400 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Apr 1999 to 7 Apr 1999 In-Reply-To: <370D0D64.1BA6@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thanks Catehrine for the link to that article -- she makea good case, although the site as a whole is a little too imbues with Harlequin for my taste... I did a search for Diana Gabaldon, who is *always* shelved under Romance, and RWA doesn't have any of her stuff listed -- how strange! Especially since after the first book the Outlander series became increasingly more romance and less SFF. Rudy Leon PhD Student Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:09:50 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Sharon Shinn MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sandy wrote: > > I hope Sharon Shinn's books are on that list of yours as well! I've * absolutely LOVED those books! :) Absolutely!! -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:16:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Jaran and "romance trash" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danielle wrote: << IMO, the basic story of this book was classic romance trash. >> Joyce wrote: << I can speak only for myself in saying that Yes, I have quite a problem with the typical romance novel, which this is. This is my synopsis of every romance novel ever written: The man is brooding and powerful. The woman is beautiful and headstrong. They distrust each other, they clash, they show grudging respect for each other's power, they compete, one bests the other then it's the other way around. At last he comes close, closer, his hot breath on her creamy white neck etc, etc. >> Santanico wrote: << >I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is >rarely if ever found in romances these days. Much as I'd like to believe that, only a short while ago I fell victim to Nancy Kilpatrick's absolutely revolting "Child of the Night" (published in early '98, I believe). >> I'm amazed, and yes, dismayed, at comments that dismiss a whole genre (a genre that makes up more than 50 percent of mass market sales, BTW) on such little information. There are a wide range of books under the heading of "romance". I read a hundred or more romances a year, and I still only skim the surface, and I'm here to tell you, your old stereotypes don't hold true, at least, not for the good stuff. Yes, going with the theory that 90 percent of everything is crap, there are a lot (a lot!!) of bad ones out there, but don't assume "if you've read one, you've read them all". It doesn't work for anything else, why should it work for this? As for me, I've always preferred novels that concentrate on characters and relationships. The niftiest scientific or cultural speculations will leave me cold if I don't care about the characters. So I guess that explains why I love a -good- romance. If anyone wants some suggestions of some excellent titles/authors let me know. I've even suggested a few to my husband (definitely -not- a romance reader) that he has enjoyed. But then, his theory is that good work is good work, and a good novel is a good novel. Come to think of it, that's pretty much my theory too. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:10:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Re: Honor Harrington: Method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbera wrote: << I've read that whole series now (including the short story collection only out in hardback!!) and skim the technobabble just paying enough attention to know when to be more attentive. >> That's exactly what I do! I also skim a lot of the political maneuvering among the Peeps as well. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:57:39 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/8/99 2:20:12 PM, Laura wrote: <> Yeah -- there is a residual "Aw, let the girls do it in the books", but I've thought that is maybe a Weber quirk. We can only hope it won't take THAT long for a parity that's organic. But -- the many "worlds" have different gender biases, and while they are fairly simplistic, they seem acceptable to me in furthering Honor's adventures, and by-the-by examining different gender configurations. I don't think one could really classify this series as "feminist," although there are certainly occasional head-on collisions on feminist topics and ideas. Also, the male characters who appear to be gender biased are presented as not the norm, but generally a guy with an ax to grind. I think Weber means to assume that women have, in general and with a great deal of struggle, achieved legal status with men at least, and that there are still sociological areas to be worked out. (That may be a huge assumption on my part, and I hope not just an excuse.) As for Grayson... we are now, at this part of the series (I have read up to the next-to-last book), in a position to see something REALLY happen there, since Honor's mother is messing around in Grayson. She is the real resident rebel. Grayson has never quite captured my imagination. It feels sketchy -- although there are certainly hundreds of pages devoted to it. I agree with Robin about the politics in the books. I sometimes make rude noises at Weber as I read. Sounds like some of my students, that is -- full of unexplained gray areas and then startlingly clear dead wrong statements. I have tried to read the technobabble because, as Robin (again) says, some of it becomes important to plot development -- which ship can outrun the enemy, how many battle cruisers can Honor take on, how does the ship maneuver, etc. That is interesting to me, the strategy part. But I skim a lot of the power thrust stuff without guilt. Different strokes, that's all. I was bored to death with Dune. And the Honor series is the only one that has really caught my fancy. I love the treecats and the implication of inter-species connections. And, I'll face the fact that I'm a sentimental cuss myself and so those parts don't bother me. best, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:19:49 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/8/99 5:45:12 PM, Mike wrote: <> I think there is an idea -- rightly or wrongly -- that sci fi anticipates the future. We often hear of H.G. Wells' "predictions," even da Vinci's... the technobabble maybe contains the germ of something that *will be*, in other words. What the imagination can conjure may be attainable. I think, in fact, it has been so. First you have a vision, and then --- best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:40:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:44 PM 8/04/99 -0500, you wrote: >Don't know whether this is an innately gender-related trait or not, but >it's clear that such things are more likely to appeal to men than women >(with plenty of obvious exceptions). Yeah, I've noticed that. It's a mystery, all right. Can't decide if it's a Nature or a Nurture thing... >Many of my students are technical people and I often find it fascinating >to listen to them describe the details of how you run a CAD CAM program, >or prepare and put up dry wall, or cook a gourmet meal, especially if >they love what they're talking about and talk about it with enthusiasm. Just on a related note, what do you teach? See, I've noticed that a lot of tech SF fans seem to actually be involved in some tech field themselves, which could possibly explain a good deal of tech SF's appeal. >I don't particularly get off on the detail some writers put into their >descriptions of weaponry--the whole pornography of violence bit--but I >was fascinated by, for example. Lois Bujold's descriptions of structural >engineering in Falling Free or Gregory Benford's descriptions of how a >scientist actually does a physics experiment in Cosm or, again, the >technical detail on running a spaceship in Weber. See, I don't _mind_ tech, in moderation. It's when a writer devotes pages of loving detail to a spaceship's Babelfish hyper-super-drive or whatever that I get annoyed. I'm just waiting for them to get on with the damn story. >Not to disagree with you about the importance of characters and events, >which are important, but setting, theme and style are also important. >You're defining "every good story" as being identical with those elements >of literary form which you personally prefer. Some readers find character >less interesting and are more centered on style or theme. Concentration >on any of these things can produce great fiction (or lousy fiction) of >various sorts. It's just, how can you (not the personal You, but the objective You) define as "story" about 100 pages of nothing but tech? If nothing's happening, is it really a story in the purest sense of the word? I don't disagree with the fact that setting, theme and style are important, but I happen to think that they shouldn't take precedence over characterisation and plot. It reminds me of those dreadful FX-laden films we keep getting doled out to us by Hollywood ("Armageddon", anyone?). Sure, the FX is gorgeous, but there's nothing beneath the surface. >I would guess that those people who like the tech side of science >fiction are more interested than you are in certain aspects of setting, >style and theme which depend on or even grow out of those technical >elements which leave you cold. Please note: this is not a criticism of >your taste. I'm just pointing out that tastes do differ. Oh, no offense taken! I was just musing on the appeal. As I said, I know it's case of different strokes for blah, blah, blah; I guess it's just that I don't _get_ it. I was asking a question, you answered it. Therefore, I have decided not to Melissa your email box! >Excuse me--I have to go destabilize my Z1364 webrotators now, so as to >avoid a melt down in the G398 microanalyzer attached to my copy of Moby Dick. ;) Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:46:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Jaran and "romance trash" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:16 PM 8/04/99 -0400, you wrote: >I'm amazed, and yes, dismayed, at comments that dismiss a whole genre (a >genre that makes up more than 50 percent of mass market sales, BTW) on >such little information. There are a wide range of books under the >heading of "romance". I read a hundred or more romances a year, and I >still only skim the surface, and I'm here to tell you, your old >stereotypes don't hold true, at least, not for the good stuff. Excuse me? When did I "dismiss a whole genre"? I'm assuming you include my comments in the above because you see my comments as doing so; I was criticising a specific subgenre (victim-falls-for-rapist fiction) and a specific novel. I've got nothing against well-handled romance, either as a genre or a part of a non-genre novel. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:05:09 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <9904081719.AA04280@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:19 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >As I said, these are minor things. I like watching Weber's women kick butt. David has managed to populate his series with many interesting women, in fact I would say that the majority of my favorite characters end up being the women, both civilian and military. I manage to suspend a fair amount of disbelief in some of the science and technology, deal with the infodumps, and cringe at the blatant puns in naming and some of the historical allusions because I thoroughly enjoy (is revel too strong a term?) watching Honor in action kicking butt and taking names. I She's been one of the first sf adventure warrior heroines to worm her way into my affections. Catherine Asaro's Sauscony Valdoria in her Skolian Empire books is also becoming a fast favorite of mine. >The books just don't stand up to a detailed feminist analysis. :) Would there be room on this mail list for a detailed feminist analysis of why those of us who are hooked on this series like to watch Weber's women (and other similar heroines) kick ass? If not, feel free to contact me off list and we could make a stab at this. > >>I actually found Grayson interesting, at least in part because it was >>so terrifying. David Weber is fairly un-subtle, and it's clear that >>he believes women are going to succeed only when they can do the job >>as well as men. By extension it looks like he's saying women >>currently don't succeed equally because they don't do the job as well, >>but I'm don't know if that's what he actually thinks. I would dearly love to be a fly on the ceiling in his den and find out more about his personal take on women's roles and success. Maybe I'll be able to find out more when I get to see him at CopperCon in September. > >Though he does repeatedly show Grayson men talking about how they don't give >women the opportunity to prove themselves, even when they think they're being >wholly fair. I've gotten a somewhat different take over my re-readings of the series about how characters succeed. At least in the more egalitarian societies, the competent characters manage to overcome barriers placed by overtly aristocratic/plutocratic patronage or political infighting (Manticore) or decaying oligarchy/revolutionary ideologues (Haven pre and post revolution). Competence, not gender, seems to be the touchstone for whether a character ends up succeeding. And since we're in a military milieu, success does not always equal survival, and we see competent people go up in a ball of plasma all the time along with the not so competent folks. Grayson of course doesn't fit this model, but I enjoy the Grayson scenes because I'm fascinated with how they're trying to deal with the changes that contact with radically different cultures make on their own culture. Japan in the Meiji era seems to be the historical parallel here. >Again, not a sophisticated analysis, and I can barely stand to >read the later books' bizarre mish-mash of the French Revolution (there are >more repeated names than Rob S. Pierre; Saint-Just heads the Committee of >Public Safety again) and zingers to US politics. Oh well. It's that lack of subtlety kicking in again...David went for the quick payoff with these bits, and the overall story suffers for that. 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, 8 Apr 1999 22:18:04 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:44 PM 4/8/99 -0500, Michael Levy wrote: > >Many of my students are technical people and I often find it fascinating >to listen to them describe the details of how you run a CAD CAM program, >or prepare and put up dry wall, or cook a gourmet meal, especially if >they love what they're talking about and talk about it with enthusiasm. > >I don't particularly get off on the detail some writers put into their >descriptions of weaponry--the whole pornography of violence bit--but I >was fascinated by, for example. Lois Bujold's descriptions of structural >engineering in Falling Free or Gregory Benford's descriptions of how a >scientist actually does a physics experiment in Cosm or, again, the >technical detail on running a spaceship in Weber. > Michael, you've hit it on the head right there. The times I've been most fascinated by the technical details in a story are those when those details help me understand a character's motivations. If the tech information doesn't enhance my appreciation of the characters or the plot, then it gets passed over pretty quickly. I also admit a love for backstory going back to when I read LotR and spent almost as much time poring over the appendices as I did the story, and I've had much fun with Christopher Tolkien's ongoing exploration of how his father's lifework developed over the years. The same goes for reading Willis McNally's Dune Encyclopedia or the various Trek technical manuals. I would have a grand time working on a Honorverse concordance (the Royal Manticoran Encyclopaedia?). 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: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:17:29 -0500 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: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <199904090440.XAA88948@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: > At 12:44 PM 8/04/99 -0500, you wrote: > > Yeah, I've noticed that. It's a mystery, all right. Can't decide if it's a > Nature or a Nurture thing... > My assumption is that it's some of each. There's something in human brain structure, I think, that tends to push males in one direction and females in the other (with many obvious exceptions in both genders) and society, sadly turning a tendency into something very close to an absolute, increases the push. Back in the 1970s and even the 80s, I wouldn't have said this, but having raised two children, one male and one female, and been the primary caregiver for one of them (the girl) and having tried very hard to raise both of them free from the limitations of externally imposed gender restrictions with only partial success, I've modified my position to the above. > >Many of my students are technical people and I often find it fascinating > >to listen to them describe the details of how you run a CAD CAM program, > >or prepare and put up dry wall, or cook a gourmet meal, especially if > >they love what they're talking about and talk about it with enthusiasm. > > Just on a related note, what do you teach? See, I've noticed that a lot of > tech SF fans seem to actually be involved in some tech field themselves, > which could possibly explain a good deal of tech SF's appeal. Actually, I'm an English teacher, specializing in children's literature, science fiction, and advanced writing courses. I teach at a technical university. Started out as a biology major but couldn't stand the math. > It's just, how can you (not the personal You, but the objective You) define > as "story" about 100 pages of nothing but tech? If nothing's happening, is > it really a story in the purest sense of the word? I don't disagree with the > fact that setting, theme and style are important, but I happen to think that > they shouldn't take precedence over characterisation and plot. It reminds me > of those dreadful FX-laden films we keep getting doled out to us by > Hollywood ("Armageddon", anyone?). Sure, the FX is gorgeous, but there's > nothing beneath the surface. I agree with you about brainless FX infested SF films, although I do usually go see them simply for the sheer mindless beauty of the FX. As to whether a "story" that's all science content and little if any character development or plot is actually a story, that's a good question. There is a long tradition in SF of the fictional essay, of course. The piece that presents itself as as an essay, but is about a totally fictitious subject, examples; Allen Danzig's "The Great Nebraska Sea" of many years ago, or Avram Davidson's Adventures in Unhistory pieces. Raphael Carter's Tiptree-winning piece this year is a recent example or Le Guin's "The Author of the Acacia Seeds" (I think I have that right). Actually, I've been playing Devil's Advocate here to some extent because I also prefer stories with strong character development and plot; I just like the techy stuff too. > I don't _get_ it. I was asking a question, you answered it. Therefore, I > have decided not to Melissa your email box! Ha! It's already been tried and I've survived. I was one of the smart ones who didn't open the message! > > Sant. > Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:30:32 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: VIVIA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sant. said: Oh, I don't know. Seems to me that a lot of female authors have actually gotten away with a lot more subversive stuff than male authors have. Compare, for example, Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" which still gets condemned for its drugs, sex, cannibalism, etc (most of this due to the unfortunate publicity given it by Charles Manson). Whereas Tanith Lee's "Vivia" contains some of the most viscerally repulsive and emotionally disturbing material I've ever read in any genre, and yet, not too many people have even heard of this novel. Maybe it's because male SF authors are under more scrutiny; I don't know. I mean, I've read novels by female authors that would have been amazingly controversial had male authors written them. Sant: While I am not debating your basic premise, I don't think this is a fair comparison. SIASL was distributed widely by a more established author and publisher. I don't think Lee's career matches Heinlein's in recognition and sales, and I'm amazed to find someone else who has a copy of VIVIA, since it was AFAIK only published in the UK in hardcover in 1995, which means there are probably only a couple of hundred copies floating around the whole world... I am a Lee fan, but confess this book failed the 40 page rule, at least at first pass. (40 pages is my litmus test for something to grab me, or I move on) BTW, BDD is reissuing SILVER METAL LOVER in the states in May, I think. Pax, Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:46:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: VIVIA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:30 PM 8/04/99 +0000, you wrote: >Sant: > >While I am not debating your basic premise, I don't think this is a fair >comparison. SIASL was distributed widely by a more established author >and publisher. I don't think Lee's career matches Heinlein's in >recognition and sales, Well, I was just using a vague example. Heinlein and Lee were just the only authors who came instantly to mind on a comparison basis; I'm sure I could come up with a better example. You get the gist, though. and I'm amazed to find someone else who has a >copy of VIVIA, since it was AFAIK only published in the UK in hardcover >in 1995, which means there are probably only a couple of hundred copies >floating around the whole world... Are there really? Gosh. I was under the impression that it was much more widely published than that; while Lee doesn't quite command the same instant name recognition as Heinlein, she still has quite a bit of cachet in SF/F circles. I found my copy in my local SF bookstore, and as such believed it to be pretty widely distributed (my bookstore doesn't tend to carry many of the more "obscure" or out-of-print titles). Just out of curiosity; are there plans for a reprint anytime soon (based on Lee's name recognition), or is this book considered such an embarrassment to Lee's repertoire that it shall never see the light of day again? >I am a Lee fan, but confess this book failed the 40 page rule, at least >at first pass. (40 pages is my litmus test for something to grab me, or >I move on) Oh, no argument there. I didn't like the book either. Not her best by a very long shot. I thought it extremely self-indulgent, and every character was just so utterly self-absorbed that it was impossible to really care what happened to any of them (though I confess, I did find the last two pages oddly affecting - even though the ending just screams "GIVE ME A SEQUEL RIGHT NOW!!!"). I do like Lee, though; my favorite work of hers is probably "Elephantasm". Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:18:07 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Diana Gabaldon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:14:21 -0400 > From: Rudy Leon > Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Apr 1999 to 7 Apr 1999 > > Thanks Catehrine for the link to that article -- she makea good > case, although the site as a whole is a little too imbues with > Harlequin for my taste... I did a search for Diana Gabaldon, who is > *always* shelved under Romance, and RWA doesn't have any of > her stuff listed -- how strange! Especially since after the first book > the Outlander series became increasingly more romance and less > SFF. Rudy, I think the site is still in the process of building itself, that is, they're gradually adding authors and books as they come up in issues of the magazine. So that is probably why Diana's books aren't listed there yet. But she certainly is a popular author, in several genres, and the mainstream too. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:18:46 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Query: Creative Anachronism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could anyone tell me: 1: When did the Society for Creative Anachronism (if I have the name correct) get going? 2: Is there a website anyone could recommend on the subject? Thanks! Frances ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:10:55 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: VIVIA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm amazed to find someone else who has a >copy of VIVIA, since it was AFAIK only published in the UK in hardcover >in 1995, which means there are probably only a couple of hundred copies >floating around the whole world... > Also in paperback - last year? Not perhaps one of Lee's best. (or maybe just in one of her modes that doesn't do much for me) Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:37:12 -0700 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: Query: Creative Anachronism In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 99 15:18:46 EDT." <19990409.151859.-486305.0.jjggww@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Well, according to www.sca.org: The SCA was started in 1966 in Berkeley, California by a group of science fiction and fantasy fans who wanted a theme party. Following the party, a group got together to discuss the idea of a medieval re-creation and re-enactment group (which has ended up being much like the Civil War, Revolutionary War or Buck-skinning re-enactment groups that were beginning to form in the US). In Britain, medieval and British Civil War recreation societies had existed for any number of years. The Californians incorporated as a non-profit educational society, started forming groups, and away they went. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:47:19 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: mind candy, romance novels and gossip Catherine Asaro quotes an excerpt from Jennifer Crusie, author of Tell Me Lies, so I'll add a little more: "Fairy tales, Luthi says, promise the reader a just universe, and so do the genres. Mystery fiction promises a morally just universe, and speculative fiction promises an intellectually just universe, but romance fiction trumps all of these because it makes the greatest promise of all. It says that if you truly open yourself to other people, if you do the hardest thing of all which is to make yourself vulnerable and reach out for love and connection and everything that makes life as a human being worth living, you will be rewarded; it promises, in short, an emotionally just universe. It told me that what I did made a difference, that the things I understood and had experience with were important, that "women's stuff" mattered. It gave me female protagonists in stories that promised that if a woman fought for what she believed in and searched for the truth, she could strip away the old lies about her life and emerge re-born, transformed with that new sense of self that's the prize at the end of any quest." Cruise, and many of you on the list, make a great case for romance novels, but it's not one that rings true to me. Granted I have not read a hundred or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. Perhaps I haven't read the "great ones", but I don't think I'll go plowing through a bunch of them to find one that resounds in me. If I start reading a book without knowing anything about it and it starts having that "romance" ring to it, I stop. As I've said before, so many books, so little time. I have no plans to waste mine on books that don't teach me anything about myself. Cruise says that romance novels posit an "emotionally just universe" in which, if she fights for what she believes she wins the prize of a new sense of self. I don't see them that way. If Jaran is an example of a romance novel, then I see it showing that if a woman lets herself be conquered, gives her heart to the one who wants her, she can happily live in his world. It's a new sense of self, alright, but one defined by someone else. Where's the accomplishment there? When I define a book as mind candy, I'm talking about one in which plot, or descriptions of things are all important, characterization is secondary to what, where, and why something happens. It's like gossip. We might all be interested in who's doing what to whom at work or in our neighborhood or in Hollywood, but does such trivia have any ability to make our lives more understandable? I think the purpose of reading is to understand life. Someone complained that she got a little tired of Tess's prolonged grieving over the death of Yuri. I think that's because we have no basis for understanding that grief. Yes, in some cultures the sibling bond is very strong, does that mean her grief was just a social response? I think we have a hard time understanding Tess's grieving because grief is such a personal and deep response, and we never relate to Tess personally or deeply. I never get the feeling of her love for either brother. I see obligation, teasing, fun and appreciation, but not love. And I think that's what's wrong with the romance novels I've read or read about. They're not about love, they're not about a deep sense of self and commitment to another being. They're about posturing, and petulance, and competition and acquisition. They might be "about" passion, but they don't help us understand the nature of passion. I know Illya was brooding, and even though I knew some of the facts of his life, I never understood his brooding, it never made a personal connection with me. I don't know the people in this book. I know what they do, but I never understand why they feel or if they feel. The love story in Fisherman, "Another Story" did ring true to me. I learned about Hideo and what he went through before giving himself to Isidri and a life within their family. I believed, even from such a short story, that there was love between those two full characters. In the 494 pages of Jaran the only character described as a believable person was Arina. I could feel her as the dominated little cousin who becomes etsana as I could feel the developing love between Hideo and Isidri. It's a mighty lot of fluff to get through to find one authentic character. I don't see romance novels as showing pieces of real women's lives. I see them as showing undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:21:45 -0400 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: technobabble/Weber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Marc Levy wrote, re men liking technobabble: > There's something in human brain > structure, I think, that tends to push males in one direction and > females in the other (with many obvious exceptions in both genders) > and society, sadly turning a tendency into something very close to > an absolute, increases the push. > > Back in the 1970s and even the 80s, I wouldn't have said this, but > having raised two children, one male and one female, and been the > primary caregiver for one of them (the girl) and having tried very > hard to raise both of them free from the limitations of externally > imposed gender restrictions with only partial success, I've modified > my position to the above. I've heard several people make similar comments. While I'm not so extreme as to say that people are born as "blank slates", it does seem to me that parents often underrate the effects of a) unconscious cues and b) non-parental influences upon their children. In today's world it's simply not possible for a parent to raise a child completely free of gender restrictions, though I think it's very important to try! -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:31:18 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Kate Wilhelm: nonfiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'll get this right yet. It was a taped interview by Wilhelm and Knight with each other, from a list of questions sent by Platt, in DREAM MAKERS. Wilhelm mentions that some folk blamed KW or their marriage for DK's relatively sparse fiction in the latter '60s and '70s; Knight demands to know who's making such allegations; Wilhelm replies that she hears this from other writers; Knight mutters, "Great to have friends." U of OR has a portrait of KW and DK up in their English Dept offices, I'm told. Well-deserved. --- Todd Mason wrote: > Thanks! The Boskone momento BETTER THAN ONE (NESFA > Press, of course) > might have some material as well. Also, the i/v in > DREAM MAKERS was a > telephone dual session with Knight by Platt. Also an > intro to LISTEN, > LISTEN, perhaps... _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:41:57 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Of Interest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >From the 4/9/99 DOMINION NEWS: "Hard SF" panel discussion Two acclaimed authors give their perspective on the subgenre known as "hard SF," debunking some commonly-held stereotypes about who writes it, who reads it and what's so darn "hard" about it anyway. Catherine Asaro's novella "Aurora in Four Voices" and novel HAWK are both nominees for the 1998 Nebula award. Vonda N. McIntyre's THE MOON AND THE SUN was the 1997 Nebula award winner for Best Novel. This event is the latest in a series of chats with notable genre authors co-presented by Asimov's Science Fiction and Analog Science Fiction. Visit these publications online at: http://www.sfsite.com/asimovs/ http://www.sfsite.com/analog/ To chat, visit http://www.scifi.com/chat/chatnow.html and join #auditorium on the appointed date and time. Requires a java-capable browser. IRC users can connect their chat clients to , port 6667. WebTV users, see http://www.scifi.com/chat/chat.faq.html for more information. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:15:45 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: New Tepper book? In-Reply-To: <370E6F69.4EEEDE35@together.net> from "Janice E. Dawley" at Apr 9, 99 05:21:45 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks! Excuse me if I've been asleep at my desk but there is a new Sheri S. Tepper book out! Last night, at my favorite SF society's meeting, it was on the dealers table. Of course since I spent all my money on books at a con last weekend I couldn't snatch it up! :( Of course I can't recall the title correctly right now, _Song of the Sea_? _Singer of the Sea_? or something like that. It lists 1999 as the pub date and it was in hardback. Can anyone give any info on this title or a mini/micro review? Thanks! BTW. The con I was at last weekend was the leaner Minicon. I got a chance to see and hear Octavia Butler again, and we chatted one-to-one in the dealers room, we both bemoaned our book addictions. :) I missed Jan Bogstad interviewing her but I did get a chance to see Debbie Notkin (_ed. of _Flying Cups and Saucers_) on a panel with Butler. She mentioned the similarities between Bulter's _Parable of the Sower_ and Charnas' _Conquer's(sp?) Child_. She says that there's going to be a great paper written comparing/contrasting those two books. I know I can't wait to read them both. Take care, Caroline ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:41:20 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Stereotyping genres MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce, that was a good quote you added from the Cruise piece. You also write ... > Cruise, and many of you on the list, make a great case for romance novels, > but it's not one that rings true to me. Granted I have not read a hundred > or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. ... /snip/ I don't see romance > novels as showing pieces of real women's lives. I see them as showing > undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals. If you haven't even read ten books in a genre that produces hundreds per year, you aren't in a position to define that entire genre. I'm afraid that in a case like this I also have to agree with Cruise's statement: "Imagine an intellectually honest critic saying "All literary fiction is bad" without ever having read widely in literary fiction." Imagine if you had read less than ten science fiction or fantasy books in your life, then came on this list and tried to define all science fiction and fantasy with a statement like "I see them as showing undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals." Who knows what you might have read in SF and F? Gor? Some other sexist business? Some dull, poorly written techno-porn? That said, it's obvious you didn't get out of JARAN what many of us did. That's fine. Not everyone gets the same thing out of a book. What one person sees as great commentary another person may not like. Obviously, not all stories work for all people. But it sounds to me that you are also extrapolating from "I didn't see it/it didn't work for me" to "it's trivia and doesn't make our lives more understandable." I don't see that as a valid extrapolation. Imagine what you would say to all those literary critics who condemn science fiction and fantasy as trash, including feminist SFF, usually with having read only a few examples of the genre. Many of them state that the meaning of reading is to understand life, as you do in your post, then go on to explain at length how SF and/or fantasy fails in this regard, very much the same way you describe what you perceive as the shortcomings of romance. Imagine your reaction to such a commentary. It always disappoints me to see our own genre stereotype other genres in the same way that we so object to having our own genre stereotyped. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:16:18 EDT Reply-To: JGOLTZMAN@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Bruscell Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I ordered _The Maerlande Chronicles_ from its publisher in Canada about two years ago--H.B. Finn & Co. in Bolton, Ontario 905-951-6600. Maybe H.B. Finn has a web page by now. Also, if I remember correctly, I found an online site for a Canadian college book store (can't think of which one) that had Vonarburg's books for sale via the internet. Good Luck Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:13:15 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Slightly OT complaint MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I started reading Octavia Butler's Wild Seed -- which is thrilling and wonderful -- but I am appalled by the number of typos in this book! Aaargh... repeated sentences as well as misspellings... Maybe Warner Aspect needs to get a Spellcheck! growsing, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:37:18 -0400 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: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 03:16 PM 4/10/99 EDT, Joanna Goltzman Bruscell wrote: >I ordered _The Maerlande Chronicles_ from its publisher in Canada about two >years ago--H.B. Finn & Co. in Bolton, Ontario 905-951-6600. Maybe H.B. Finn >has a web page by now. Also, if I remember correctly, I found an online site >for a Canadian college book store (can't think of which one) that had >Vonarburg's books for sale via the internet. Chapters Books in Canada says that they can ship this book within 24 hours. Their web address is http://www.chaptersglobe.com/ Being a continuing student of French, I decided to search for the original French version of this novel, Chroniques du pays des mères. It is out of print, but in case anyone is interested, a publisher named Alire (http://www.alire.com/) says they will be reprinting it in August of 1999. Yay! -- Janice (who imagines that she will be referring to her English copy of *In the Mothers' Land* quite a lot while stumbling through the French) ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- A New Stereophonic Sound Spectacular "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 02:43:58 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Seren Subject: Re: technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: from "Michael Marc Levy" at Apr 9, 99 09:17:29 am Content-Type: text Michael Marc Levy wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: [more boys being attracted to tech than girls] > > Yeah, I've noticed that. It's a mystery, all right. Can't decide if it's a > > Nature or a Nurture thing... > > > My assumption is that it's some of each. There's something in human brain > structure, I think, that tends to push males in one direction and > females in the other (with many obvious exceptions in both genders) and > society, sadly turning a tendency into something very close to an absolute, > increases the push. > > Back in the 1970s and even the 80s, I wouldn't have said this, but having > raised two children, one male and one female, and been the primary > caregiver for one of them (the girl) and having tried very hard to raise > both of them free from the limitations of externally imposed gender > restrictions with only partial success, I've modified my position to the > above. > Oh foo. I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying here - i.e. that because your two children, despite your best efforts, didn't turn out completely free of gender bias, it must be inherent. Because, well, foo. It assumes that parents, and only parents, make the only contribution to a child's upbringing. It assumes that it's possible to raise children in almost complete isolation from the rest of society without locking them in a cellar. Didn't they have friends, teachers, relatives, neighbours? Did they never read any books or watch any television? I mean, I picked up plenty of Christian stuff without my parents being Christian. And it's not even as if the society I grew up in was particularly church-going. And I can date my sister's problems with maths pretty precisely to when she started a new school and started hanging around with a group of mathphobic girls. seren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:18:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: mind candy, romance novels and gossip MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce Jones wrote: << When I define a book as mind candy, I'm talking about one in which plot, or descriptions of things are all important, characterization is secondary to what, where, and why something happens. It's like gossip. We might all be interested in who's doing what to whom at work or in our neighborhood or in Hollywood, but does such trivia have any ability to make our lives more understandable? I think the purpose of reading is to understand life. Someone complained that she got a little tired of Tess's prolonged grieving over the death of Yuri. I think that's because we have no basis for understanding that grief. >> Well, by your definition, JARAN is definitely -not- mind candy. For me, the characters were the heart of the story, then the Jaran culture, and the "events" a distant third. I didn't have any problem relating to Tess's grief at Yuri's death; in fact, I felt it myself. Your reaction to the book is not universal. << we never relate to Tess personally or deeply >> Again, don't you mean that YOU didn't relate to Tess personally or deeply. Because I -did- relate to her in a very personal way. I'd say that's one of the reasons why the book worked for me. << Granted I have not read a hundred or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. >> << And I think that's what's wrong with the romance novels I've read or read about. They're not about love, they're not about a deep sense of self and commitment to another being. They're about posturing, and petulance, and competition and acquisition. >> And I still find it amazing that someone who says she hasn't read ten romances in her life is so sure she knows what they are all about. Certainly, comment on the books you've read (though it'd be useful to know which books you're talking about), but assuming you know everything (or indeed, anything) about the genre based on your minuscule sample ...?! At least 100 of the approximately 500 books I read in a year are romances (not counting books in other genres with "romantic" elements such as JARAN), and I'd have a hard time defining the genre so easily. (Though for my money, Crusie does a pretty good job.) I'm not trying to convince anyone to read romance. I would like to point out how ridiculous it is to think you know anything about the subject, however. It's kind of like me saying I "knew", without bothering to read it, that the LeGuin book would be boring because it "looked" boring. True enough, but does that tell you anything whatsoever about the book, or does it just tell you about my own personal quirks? I could also say that I've read ten sf books (even feminist sf books!) that were a total waste of time, populated with cardboard characters, ridiculous plots, and outdated political rants ... Does that tell you anything meaningful about the genre/sub-genre as a whole? -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:48:43 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Jaran / romance novels It's also worthwhile to note that romance novels, as will every other genre, have conventions and short-hand. I've read a miniscule number of romance novels (all carefully picked out for me as examples of the best of the genre), but at one point I read three of them in one weekend, and the short-hand started to become very clear. Funny thing was, the third was a medieval romance and had a great deal of the short-hand often used in fantasy novels. Because I was grumbling slightly over the romance conventions, I actually noticed that I was skipping over all of the fantasy conventions. Do people know what I mean by "short-hand"? Example: ruler of Domain X is accused of consorting with the devil and destroying all of his/her enemies with magic. Our Hero is sent to his/her castle and eventually finds that s/he is actually a perfectly nice person. This is a standard plot stle that's been done poorly and done well, and which most SF&F readers would recognize and, in many cases, not mind if it was done well. But it's the sort of thing that drives non-SF&F readers up the wall. Every genre has its shortcomings, its weaknesses, its own personal inability to move outside of a fairly small set of constraints. That's what makes it a genre novel. No SF&F reader should judge a genre by those weaknesses. It'll only make us sound dumb when we talk to people who think "literary fiction" is the only thing that won't prove you an idiot. As a last note, I've heard romance readers say that SF is very anti-feminist and in fact anti-woman because it doesn't talk about real people, it's emotionless, it's doesn't have any strong women in it, there's nothing that addresses the existence of family, and where there are women they "show their independence" by acting exactly like men. And *we all make those same complaints*! But that doesn't mean SF isn't worth reading. And it doesn't mean we're all stupid, or non-feminist, or that we want women to act like men if they're visible at all. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:11:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*] technobabble/Weber In-Reply-To: <199904100143.CAA12559@yon-net.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Seren wrote: > Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: > [more boys being attracted to tech than girls] > > > Yeah, I've noticed that. It's a mystery, all right. Can't decide if it's a > > > Nature or a Nurture thing... > > > > > My assumption is that it's some of each. There's something in human brain > > structure, I think, that tends to push males in one direction and > > females in the other (with many obvious exceptions in both genders) and > > society, sadly turning a tendency into something very close to an absolute, > > increases the push. > > > > Back in the 1970s and even the 80s, I wouldn't have said this, but having > > raised two children, one male and one female, and been the primary > > caregiver for one of them (the girl) and having tried very hard to raise > > both of them free from the limitations of externally imposed gender > > restrictions with only partial success, I've modified my position to the > > above. > > > Oh foo. > > I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying here - i.e. that > because your two children, despite your best efforts, didn't turn > out completely free of gender bias, it must be inherent. Because, > well, foo. It assumes that parents, and only parents, make the > only contribution to a child's upbringing. It assumes that it's > possible to raise children in almost complete isolation from the rest > of society without locking them in a cellar. Didn't they have friends, > teachers, relatives, neighbours? Did they never read any books or watch > any television? > I'm not talking about "turning out completely free of gender bias." What you say about other people having an influence is quite obvious and I wouldn't deny it for a moment. What I'm saying is that I think that they started with some gender differentiation (and I wouldn't and didn't use the word "bias" either), tendencies that showed up very early on and that societal influences only exaggerated. Obviously I can't prove anything one way or the other--I'm reacting to careful observation of two specific cases--but then so far as I can tell one can't really prove the point one way or the other. All I know is that the large majority of my friends and acquaintances who actually have children and who aren't speaking purely from theory (most of them feminists, some rather puzzled radical feminists who worked a lot harder at producing androgynous children than we did!) have had similar experiences. Foo? Mike Levy (who only this week is having to deal with his daughter having achieved puberty). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:05:16 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marianne Reddin Aldrich Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*]technobabble/Weber Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain You know, my parents were among those trying to raise their children to be more-or-less nongendered (with exceptions due to cultural surroundings like my mom INSISTING that my sister and I had to wear dresses for holiday dinners with Nana, etc.). My brother loved _William's Doll_, my favourite toy as a child was a yellow Tonka truck (dang! I MISS that truck, still...) And I think it is worth mentioning, in this context, that they see us (myself, my two sisters, and my brother) as more gendered than we see ourselves.... I mean, other than me (who knows how female/male/all-mixed-up I feel? What day of the week is it?), they do definitely identify as female or male, BUT: We don't feel confined to gender roles. If ever we feel confined to gender roles, it is due to (perceived) societal pressure (My sister quit working at the used sports equipment store to work for a young miss fashion place, because she felt she had too 'masculine' an image to get (male) dates in our small hometown... within a month, she was back at the sports store, because, in her words, "I got SO tired of hearing, 'Does this make me look fat?'".). In general, all 4 of us are pretty darn androgynous. On the other hand, my parents respond to us in gendered ways a large amount of the time, and re-interpret our experiences in ways that make them seem more 'gender-typical'... Not consciously or forcefully, mind, but we have definitely noticed that they tend to make assumptions in that direction. I guess my question is: When your kids are grownish (college-age, or whatever age they feel grown...), will THEY feel like there are essential differences between them based on gender? Or is it possible that it is (to some extent) the result of a gap between your child-raising and your learned perceptions of the various genders? Just a thought. And lord knows I don't have any kids (though I have certainly looked after plenty, as the oldest of about 14 cousins), so I ought to be deferring on experience anyway:). Marianne >I'm not talking about "turning out completely free of gender bias." What >you say about other people having an influence is quite obvious and I >wouldn't deny it for a moment. What I'm saying is that I think that they >started with some gender differentiation (and I wouldn't and didn't use >the word "bias" either), tendencies that showed up very early on and that >societal influences only exaggerated. > >Obviously I can't prove anything one way or the other--I'm reacting to >careful observation of two specific cases--but then so far as I can tell >one can't really prove the point one way or the other. All I know is >that the large majority of my friends and acquaintances who actually have >children and who aren't speaking purely from theory (most of them feminists, >some rather puzzled radical feminists who worked a lot harder at >producing androgynous children than we did!) have had similar experiences. > >Foo? > >Mike Levy (who only this week is having to deal with his daughter having >achieved puberty). _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:36:22 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*] te... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/99 7:42:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: << What I'm saying is that I think that they started with some gender differentiation (and I wouldn't and didn't use the word "bias" either), tendencies that showed up very early on and that societal influences only exaggerated. >> Hm. OK, once more into the breach... The anatomy of our brains reflects our environment. Re the case (others like it) of the lifelong typist whose brain, in the area of finger-control, was four times larger than average. The brain increases in volume around sites that are stimulated, and can decrease in volume again when the stimulation ends (i.e., boredom). See any of the works of Dr. Marion Diamond. Further: we treat infants differently by sex IMMEDIATELY after birth, during a period of major brain development. There were some great studies a couple of decades ago where babies were dressed cross-gender, (i.e., boys in pink outfits) and adults were told the child was a girl. The baby was treated MUCH differently when thought a boy than a girl, regardless of actual gender. So the path of dirrerential brain development begins immediately. Madrone, who really really wanted a chemistry set for Christmas but was told it was a boy toy and advised to get a doll.... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:06:14 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have 11 yr old triplets: two boys and a girl. (I also have a 5 yr old boy, but he never gets as much interest as the trips) The triplets are my step-kids, who I've raised since they were 4 years old. There was certainly much conditioning before I showed up (ie: my husband would put Katie's hair in rollers (?!?) and her closet consisted -only- of the pink/purple variety) but now, after seven years with me, they're much more aware of the cultural biases and influences and can pick and choose what they want of them. I'm raising them as gender-neutral as possible, and am constantly second guessing whether they're spouting "traditional" values or simply stating a preference -- Katie loves pink/purple still but wants to get an offroad dirt bike, in purple. Does that count as girly? tomboy? What is nature, what is nurture? I ask myself: "if this were Billy asking instead of Katie, what would my answer be?" I do find that they are fully convinced that anyone can do anything, regardless of sex, which is a positive outlook. I find where they differ is along the old-wives'-tales truths. Katie is much more emotional and while she will stand up for herself in the face of adversity, she will cry while doing so. The boys are also willing to stand up for themselves, but there is much more bravado about it and less self-questioning about the value of the other person's position. I'm convinced it's along the Kohlberg/Gilligan moral dilemma idea. There have also been studies that show opposite-sexed multiples are much more likely to tend to androgeny, due to the floating testosterone / estrogen crossing between the embryotic sacs in the uterus at the time. This may throw off the scientific value of my observations. just my 2c, Jenn Mottram At 12:11 AM 4/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not talking about "turning out completely free of gender bias." What >you say about other people having an influence is quite obvious and I >wouldn't deny it for a moment. What I'm saying is that I think that they >started with some gender differentiation (and I wouldn't and didn't use >the word "bias" either), tendencies that showed up very early on and that >societal influences only exaggerated. > >Obviously I can't prove anything one way or the other--I'm reacting to >careful observation of two specific cases--but then so far as I can tell >one can't really prove the point one way or the other. All I know is >that the large majority of my friends and acquaintances who actually have >children and who aren't speaking purely from theory (most of them feminists, >some rather puzzled radical feminists who worked a lot harder at >producing androgynous children than we did!) have had similar experiences. > >Foo? > >Mike Levy (who only this week is having to deal with his daughter having >achieved puberty). > athena@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464 ------------------------------------- * You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:27:57 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: new Tepper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SINGER FROM THE SEA by Sheri Tepper The planet Haven is home to humans who have imported their culture as a whole. The inhabitants of its major land mass live according to the Covenants, strictures laid down by the first colonists. Part of the agreements have to do with class structure; others create the constrictions women of the upper class are expected to live by. The smaller islands are inhabited by two different cultures: one in which men and women do not even speak the same language and one "inferior" culture which provides the work force. One of the commonalties across these groups is a story of a mythical woman communicating with the sea. As in other of Tepper's novels, she examines the impact of the decision of the few, made for personal power and gain, on the population of the planet. Chafing at the restrictions of "convenantal" life, Genevive nonetheless tries to participate and cooperate for her father's sake. Little does she know the pivotal role she is to play in the future of her world. Another fascinating exploration into the consequences of a homo-centric world view. Avon Eos, $24.00. --Maryelizabeth Hart for "The Plot Thickens" -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:25:39 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <199904111708.NAA30358@mail1.javanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On the lighter side... I recently saw a documentary about a semi-scientific book called "Brain Sex" - (can't remember the author or any details, sorry) about gender differences in the nervous system and brain. The documentary also showed some of the experiments on very young babies they used in the book. In one experiment..6mth old babies were given a cord and bell to pull, which changed pictures on a slide screen. At some point the researchers turned the cords ability to switch the pictures, off. They found that on average the girl babies took 3 pulls or a maximum of 6 before realising that it no longer worked. The boy babies however kept pulling the cord for two to three times longer than the girls. The researcher said.."It may be stubborness, or stupidity - but whatever it is, the boys seem to have more of it":)) Cheers - Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:28:10 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: mind candy, romance novels and gossip How can I categorize all romance novels after having read 10 or fewer? What I was saying was that from having read those few representatives of the genre, I "personally" find it to be very boring and have no desire to read more looking for the plums. Perhaps I haven't read the good ones. What I'm saying is that I do not plan to plow through completely meaningless (to me) novels in a certain classification in order to find the ones that reflect my life. If Jaran is one of the good ones, and many folk on the list seem to think it is, it reinforces my view that romance novels do not speak to me in a meaningful way. When I say that "we" are annoyed by Tess's prolonged grief because we don't find it believably represented, I'm referring to the person who made the original comment and those like her and myself. Perhaps this person did find Tess a fully developed character and I misunderstood the intent of her comment. Perhaps I am the only person on the list who found the characters in Jaran cardboard and the book to be about 1) action with 2) snippets of ideas that are not fully developed. I would be very surprised if this were true, but discussion can be surprising. As to comparing my exclusion of romance novels from the categories of books that appeal to me with another person's excluding science fiction, I think you have a point. Not all of us can relate to all forms of writing. Some people truly don't "get" science fiction. I suggest they can find a world of books to read that help them understand life without ever touching the stuff. Along with romance novels, I have always dismissed mysteries as a type of fiction that just didn't appeal to me. Then I discovered Prime Suspect, Cracker, Silent Witness and Abigail Padgett. I love them all and now know there are mysteries I can enjoy. What if I hadn't discovered those stories? What if I had lived my entire life not knowing there were good mysteries? I not only think my existence might still have had purpose, I'm almost convinced others could have gone on enjoying mysteries while I didn't. My daughter hates chocolate. She could tell me "We hate the smell, we hate the greasy, bitter taste, we hate the fact that we can't get through a holiday without someone's trying to push it at us" and I would know she was speaking for people like her who hate chocolate. I would also know that her dislike of the confection has no bearing on the ultimate worth of the food. She once laughed as she told me that a friend had said, "I know you don't like chocolate, and I know you don't like coffee, but you should try this mocha java, it's great." No, I don't like romance novels and I don't like novels in which the woman shows she's hot stuff because she can be one of the guys, so not surprisingly, I didn't like Jaran. But I do like chocolate and I do like coffee, and the fact that my daughter doesn't, doesn't make them any less pleasurable to me. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:06:38 -0400 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 9 of 'What Are We Fighting For..?' - "A Socialist Feminist is a Woman Who Goes to Twice as Many Meetings" this month (front page of the site will be updated shortly). For those who are looking for a place to consider, discuss, vent or rant on socialist vs radical feminism, or what Joanna has to say about it, join us. We are at: http://www.breakingset.org/ For those relatively new listers, Crazy Russ Old-Timers Needing Essays to Survive (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?_ and whatever we have to say about Russ and her work. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:23:35 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Jaran as mind candy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jeri said: >First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" >offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but >to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is >somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes >good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and read it. I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this guilt out of the way. Interestingly I don't think I had romance in mind when I suggested this was mind candy, although that's clearly how some people took it. At least not explicitly. Then again, a little sexual tension never hurt a page-turner, even when you know who's gonna end up with our hero pretty much as soon as they meet. Thanks to Catherine and Jeri for keeping us honest about throwing genre stones. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:38:56 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Jaran - a collectivist society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Some time ago I posted a question asking about positive examples in SF of collectivist societies. Several people sent helpful and thoughtful replies and I never got around to responding. Misha and Kathleen mentioned Tiptree/Sheldon's "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" and AJ and a different Kathleen discussed various Cherryh stories in that light. Right after I posted my question, I started reading Jaran and realized here was another example. The Jaran culture strongly emphasizes the good of the tribe over the right of the individual. We see this in a variety of ways, from the forbidden Illya/Vasil relationship to the smaller sacrifices the characters willingly make to maintain the culture's values. Of course none of these are jumping to mind at the moment... In all cases the individuals may struggle with their sacrifice but they go along with them in a way that feels right. Of course they have to, as anyone who breaks those laws is killed. But that's a price they're all quite willing to pay. The most negative reaction to this kind of sacrifice comes in a later book when Ilya pressures Nadine to marry so she can produce heirs for him. Then again we view her struggle through the lens of some of the characters from Earth, so perhaps some of it is projection. This isn't really a spoiler, but sorry if you haven't read that far yet and have no idea what I'm talking about. At any rate, I think Elliot did a good job showing a different set of values from our current individualist culture, and demonstrating these differences in a convincing way. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:15:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG Jaran, various comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Wow, I got a little behind. Here are some comments that I didn't see already posted: Lindy and others had trouble understanding how Tess and Yuri could be so close and had trouble understanding the depth of her grief at his death. I had the same reaction while reading the story. In retrospect, though, I think that Yuri represented the closeness she could never have with her real brother. She lost that just when she had let down her guard and believed it was possible. This explanation works, but it didn't come through in the story for me, I had to explain it to myself later. Lindy "wondered was if any Jaran men crossed the gender lines to the extent that our hero did" and now that I'm almost through the third book I can't say that I recall any examples of this. All the brave gender-bending was in the same direction. Susan wrote >And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and believable >parts of the culture was the polyamory... The fact that the heroine gets it on >with several men and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the tribespeople, >seems pretty radical. Yes, Elliot has fun twisting things around like this and letting us experience it firsthand through Tess. And even though Tess is a bit of a larger-than-life hero, she still makes assumptions and mistakes that I would probably make, enhancing the identification with Tess (and the escapist value of the story). Another angle of the polyamory aspect of the Jaran culture is revealed in a later book. Since sex is not expected to be limited to one's spouse, they don't even try to consider biological paternity. A child's father is his mother's husband, no matter who actually contributed the DNA. Elliot does a good job of exploring some of these ramifications as the Earth & Jaran cultures mix. Catherine sums up the gender whammy of this book best: >JARAN audaciously thumbs its nose at the idea that male aggression will, by >nature, make men the sexual aggressors. Also, Susan points out that Tess didn't have a chance to get close to any of the women, and that it was interesting to see her becoming a role model for other Jaran women -- Elliot begins to explore both these areas nicely in the subsequent books. Speaking of the later books, I thought Elliot tried to introduce too many secondary characters that didn't add enough value, such as Jiroannes the ambassador. I would much rather she spend more time with the Jaran women, fleshing out more what their world is like. Or get on with it and take us to learn about the Chappeli females. Someone else (sorry, I lost track of all the postings) mentioned that the only really interesting character in Jaran was Arina, the new etsana. I agree with this. She returns in the subsequent books but there's not enough of her. Too much time wasted on other characters! Another interesting character, I don't remember if she shows up in the first book, is Nadine, Illya's niece. Nicely complex and again tantalizingly underused. There's material in these books for at least a dozen more. (hint hint.) Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:36:37 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/99 3:31:24 AM, Jenniferwrote: <> Oh gee, there ought not to be any guilt. If you have read widely and thought deeply, that is really enough. We must not be stuck in academia, which is most certainly circumscribed. We ought to say what we feel and think as clearly as we can. What else is there? best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie!@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:17:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: michael levy Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*]technobabble/Weber Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:05 AM 4/11/99 GMT, you wrote: >I guess my question is: When your kids are grownish (college-age, or >whatever age they feel grown...), will THEY feel like there are >essential differences between them based on gender? Or is it possible >that it is (to some extent) the result of a gap between your >child-raising and your learned perceptions of the various genders? >Just a thought. And lord knows I don't have any kids (though I have >certainly looked after plenty, as the oldest of about 14 cousins), so >I ought to be deferring on experience anyway:). > >Marianne > You know, no one likes to be told that their own perceptions, particularly their own perceptions about themselves, may not be entirely valid, but when I look at my oldest, still struggling to find some work that he wants to do in the world, still looking for love with youthful desperation and naivete, I'm not sure how much his perceptions on this issue would conform to reality. My oldest, now 23, is, I would say, mildly androgynous. He's a lot more into talking about his emotions than most young men his age, and a lot more into caring about other people's emotions. Unfortunately, this seems to cause many young women to see him as the kind of guy with whom they just want to be friends which, needless to say, is intensely frustrating to him. I would guess that I'm probably much more aware of his androgyny than he is, as he has a fairly strong vested interest in being as macho as possible and once got really mad at his mother because she mentioned within his roommate's hearing that he's a feminist. My youngest, not quite 11 and just over the ragged edge of puberty, hates boys with a passion, insists that she's going to "go gay," either marry her best friend Solaire or Maisie the cat, and then adopt girls. The word androgynous is often applied to people who seem to be somewhere in the middle, showing relatively little sexual differentiation, but Miriam seems to operate at the extremes. On the one hand, she's intensely physical, given to riding her bike into walls and through hedges, prone to outbreaks of temper which result in fights. On the other hand, she'll primp in front of a mirror for an hour, trying on various combinations of clothes, many of them combined like some- thing out of Madonna's early trash period. To give this conversation a small feminist SF connection, I think she'd be happiest growing up as one of Suzy McKee Charnas's Riding Women! Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:28:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: michael levy Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:06 PM 4/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >I have 11 yr old triplets: two boys and a girl. (I also have a 5 yr old >boy, but he never gets as much interest as the trips) The triplets are my >step-kids, who I've raised since they were 4 years old. There was >certainly much conditioning before I showed up (ie: my husband would put >Katie's hair in rollers (?!?) and her closet consisted -only- of the >pink/purple variety) but now, after seven years with me, they're much more >aware of the cultural biases and influences and can pick and choose what >they want of them. > >I'm raising them as gender-neutral as possible, and am constantly second >guessing whether they're spouting "traditional" values or simply stating a >preference -- Katie loves pink/purple still but wants to get an offroad >dirt bike, in purple. Does that count as girly? tomboy? What is nature, >what is nurture? I ask myself: "if this were Billy asking instead of >Katie, what would my answer be?" I do find that they are fully convinced >that anyone can do anything, regardless of sex, which is a positive outlook. > >I find where they differ is along the old-wives'-tales truths. Katie is >much more emotional and while she will stand up for herself in the face of >adversity, she will cry while doing so. The boys are also willing to stand >up for themselves, but there is much more bravado about it and less >self-questioning about the value of the other person's position. I'm >convinced it's along the Kohlberg/Gilligan moral dilemma idea. > >Jenn Mottram > I don't want to get into the Sterling thing and end up hogging list space by replying to every message my message on innate gender differences, well, engendered, but this certainly reflects my experiences too. Katie and Billy could easily be my kids. The problem is that you can't know anything about the nature vs. nurture thing absolutely, so we all tend to go either with our gut reactions to observation or with theories that we personally find either comforting or politically preferable. I'd love to believe that my kids were born blank slates, but I find myself unable to do so. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 01:14:15 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/99 5:59:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: << problem is that you can't know anything about the nature vs. nurture thing absolutely, >> Mike. Please. See the science. We don't have all the answers yet, but do have lots and the information is exploding right now. Want references? And we will NEVER mistake you for Sterling. I promise. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 01:19:18 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*]tec... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/99 9:15:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: << The word androgynous is often applied to people who seem to be somewhere in the middle, showing relatively little sexual differentiation, but Miriam seems to operate at the extremes. On the one hand, >> Oh, shoot. Now I'M doing a Sterling. The last I heard, androgynous is not lack of sexual differentiation, but a more complete spectrum of human characteristics, not limited to the few allowed to each gender under current definitions. It may be that your daughter is androgynous...showing the characteristics associated with the Female stereotype (caring, nurturing, etc.) and also those associated with the male (adventurous, self-directed, strong willed). Madrone, working much too late. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:54:23 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Time for a little spiritual reflection GOD'S Customer Satisfaction Survey God would like to thank you for your belief and patronage. In order to >better serve your needs, God asks that you take a few moments to answer >the following questions. > Please keep in mind that your responses will be kept completely >confidential, and that you need not disclose your name or address >unless you prefer a direct response to comments or suggestions. > 1. How did you find out about your deity? > > __ Newspaper > > __ Bible > > __ Torah > > __ Television > > __ Book of Mormon > > __ Divine Inspiration > > __ Dead Sea Scrolls > > __ My Mama Done 'Tol Me > > __ Near Death Experience > > __ Near Life Experience > > __ National Public Radio > > __ Tabloid > > __ Burning Shrubbery > > __ Other (specify): _____________ > 2. Which model deity did you acquire? > > __ Yahweh > > __ Father, Son & Holy Ghost [Trinity Pak] > > __ Jehovah > > __ Jesus > > __ Krishna > > __ Zeus and entourage [Olympus Pak] > > __ Odin and entourage [Valhalla Pak] > > __ Allah > > __ Satan > > __ Gaia/Mother Earth/Mother Nature > > ___ None of the above, I was taken in by a false god > 3. Did your God come to you undamaged, with all parts in good working > >order and with no obvious breakage or missing attributes?__ Yes __ No > If no, please describe the problems you initially encountered here. > >Please indicate all that apply: > > __ Not eternal > > __ Finite in space/Does not occupy or inhabit entire cosmos > > __ Not omniscient > > __ Not omnipotent > > __ Not infinitely plastic (incapable of being all things to all creations) > > __ Permits sex outside of marriage > > __ Prohibits sex outside of marriage > > __ Makes mistakes (Geraldo Rivera; Michael Jackson) > > __ Makes or permits bad things to happen to good people > > __ When beseeched, does not stay beseeched > > __ Requires burnt offerings > > __ Requires virgin sacrifices > 4. What factors were relevant in your decision to acquire a deity? > > (Please check all that apply. ) > > __ Indoctrinated by parents > > __ Needed a reason to live > > __ Indoctrinated by society > > __ Needed focus in whom to despise > > __ Imaginary friend grew up > > __ Wanted to know Jesus in the Biblical sense > > __ Hate to think for myself > > __ Wanted to meet girls/boys > > __ Fear of death > > __ Wanted to piss off parents > > __ Needed a day away from work > > __ Desperate need for certainty > > __ Like Organ Music > > __ Need to feel Morally Superior > > __ Thought Jerry Falwell was cool > > __ Shit was falling out of the sky > > __ My shrubbery caught fire / a loud voice commanded me to do it > 5. Have you ever worshipped a deity before? If so, which false god were >you fooled by? Please check all that apply. > > __ Mick Jagger > > __ Cthulhu > > __ Baal > > __ The Almighty Dollar > > __ Bill Gates > > __ Left Wing Liberalism > > __ The Radical Right > > __ Ra > > __ Beelzebub > > __ Barney T.B.P.D. > > __ The Great Spirit > > __ The Great Pumpkin > > __ The Sun > > __ Elvis > > __ Cindy Crawford > > __ The Moon > > __ A burning shrubbery > > __ Other: ________________ > 6. Are you currently using any other source of inspiration in addition to God? > > ( Please check all that apply.) > > __ Tarot > > __ Lottery > > __ Astrology > > __ Television > > __ Fortune cookies > > __ Girl Scout Cookies > > __ Ann Landers > > __ Psychic Friends Network > > __ Dianetics > > __ Palmistry > > __ Playboy and/or Playgirl > > __ Self-help books > > __ Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll > > __ Biorhythms > > __ Alcohol > > __ Bill Clinton > > __ Tea Leaves > > __ EST > > __ The Internet > > __ Mantras > > __ Jimmy Swaggert > > __ Crystals (not including Crystal Gayle) > > __ Human Sacrifice > > __ Pyramids > > __ Wandering around a desert > > __ Insurance policies > > __ Burning Shrubbery > > __ Barney T.B.P.D. > > __ Teletubbies > > __ Furbys > > __ None > >Other:_____________________ > 7. God employs a limited degree of Divine Intervention to preserve the >balanced level of felt presence and blind faith. Which would you prefer? > > (circle one) > > a. More Divine Intervention > > b. Less Divine Intervention > > c. Current level of Divine Intervention is just right > > d. Don't know...what's Divine Intervention? > 8. God also attempts to maintain a balanced level of disasters and >miracles. > > Please rate on a scale of 1 - 5 God's handling of the following: > > (1 = unsatisfactory, 5 = excellent): > > A. Disasters: > > flood 1 2 3 4 5 > > famine 1 2 3 4 5 > > earthquake 1 2 3 4 5 > > war 1 2 3 4 5 > > pestilence 1 2 3 4 5 > > plague 1 2 3 4 5 > > SPAM 1 2 3 4 5 > > AOL 1 2 3 4 5 > B. Miracles: > > rescues 1 2 3 4 5 > > spontaneous remissions 1 2 3 4 5 > > stars hovering over jerkwater towns 1 2 3 4 5 > > crying statues 1 2 3 4 5 > > water changing to wine 1 2 3 4 5 > > walking on water 1 2 3 4 5 > > VCRs that set their own clocks 1 2 3 4 5 > > Saddam Hussein still alive 1 2 3 4 5 > > getting any sex whatsoever 1 2 3 4 5 > 9. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improving the > quality of God's services? (Attach an additional sheet if necessary) > If you are able to complete the questionnaire and return it to one of >your conveniently located drop-off boxes by December 31, 1999 you will be >entered in The One Free Miracle of Your Choice drawing (chances of >winning are approximately one in 6.023 x 10^23, depending on number of >>beings entered). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:49:11 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: OT: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19990412042819.00694aa8@uwec.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:28 PM 4/11/99 -0500, michael levy wrote: > The >problem is that you can't know anything about the nature vs. nurture thing >absolutely, >so we all tend to go either with our gut reactions to observation or with >theories >that we personally find either comforting or politically preferable. I'd >love to believe >that my kids were born blank slates, but I find myself unable to do so. I have to agree Mike. I don't think it can be one or the other, Nature or Nurture LOL..from watching my own children grow up. (Subjective, I know - so bite me!:) With me, my observations was on little things in personality being inherited. I became a single mother when my children were still babies, and they had next to no contact with either their father, or their father's family throughout their lives. Over the years, I often noticed 'little things' - even physical mannerisms in the kids were 'clones' of family relatives my children had never known. I was raised a country-girl and was always a tom-boy..I didnt wear a dress until I was around 18 and had to find a formal gown for my high-school graduation...yadda, yadda, blah, blah.. My daughter, despite my efforts, is as stereotypically feminine as can be, however - at the age of 2 she would stand in front of the hallway mirror checking whether her nappy (diaper) was on right, before she went outside to play. At the age of 5, she complained I never ironed her school dresses right..drove me nuts:) At now 15, she says she is embarrassed by my *masculine* behaviour:)) When her father's mother died recently, I twigged - so much of my daughter's personality reminds me so much of her paternal grandmother, a grandmother she never knew or was influenced by - the way she laughs, to what she laughs at, to what makes her cry, her love of animals and pets, her love of needlework and textiles, many of her life attitudes and the way she dresses and grooms herself - there are some differences, some quite major ones (there is some of me in her, I'm sure! LOL)...but in many ways, my daughter is her grandmother reborn:) When I read of mental illnesses being neurological and inherited, I wonder about personality and temperament - the human brain needs to be adaptable and flexible towards the environment for sure...but I can no longer believe that it is just a 'blank slate' at birth. I have no problem with the idea that there are some areas of brain function, including temperament, which may be gender-differentiated. My only complaint is that whatever the differences may be, the female ones are considered 'inferior' instead of different. ..one set of studies showed, that girls brains had less active visual cortexes, but more active auditory functions than boys. Boys learn by preferring to use their eyes, girls learn by preferentially using their ears. This research was used to support the fact, that boys are more likely to suffer from reading disabilities, than girls. Boys learning to read, were preferentially relying on visual memory, which tends to fall down at around the age of 8 or 9 when vocabulary and sentence structure is becoming too complex for visual memory to keep up with. Girls however, preferentially learn to read by 'sounding-out' words, they may have lousy spelling, but phonetically they get it right more often than boys do. Also, several thousand 11-yr-olds were tested with CAT scanning techniques in an auditory-based language laboratory - they found that in most of the girls, both sides of the brain were 'active' in processing auditory information - but the boys were only actively using one side. The researcher went on to explain, that this may explain why girls do tend to be weaker than boys at spatial, or mathematical skills, because its based in 'visual' functions, and doesn't use much of the auditory ones. He went on to explain, that is a gender-'tendency' , rather than an absolute. Like right-handedness or left-handedness - we will quite naturally, prefer to use the skill, or talent, or 'hand' that is the easiest for us to use. This partly supports why girls tend to learn language quicker and more easily than boys. It's easy, doesnt take any effort to learn the skill - and vice-versa for boys with spatial skills. It may also explain the common perception of men that "women talk too much"...or the perception of women that "men never listen". Or even why men are generally more stimulated by visual pornography and Hollywood special-effects block-buster action movies than women are..men are watching, women are listening:) Experiments with body-language communications show men are more likely to make accurate observations, when they "size-up" visually the other person, rather than by voice-tones for example...interviewing people returning from viewing the movie ID4 about what stuck in their memories...women were more likely to remember snatches of dialogue...men were more likely to remember visually stunning action scenes..... maybe this is why women enjoy telephone communications so much more than men..and men prefer to watch women's breasts instead of listening to their voice. Nonetheless, it is only a 'tendency' or a gender-preference - and there is a huge range of ability between weaknesses and strengths. Like the handed-ness analogy we can *learn* to use both hands and become ambidextrous, or be prevented from using our 'natural' preference, and forced to 'learn' to use only the opposite hand - as many left-handers of older age-groups may recall. Also, similar to other gender differences in height or muscle/fat distribution - there is always a substantially large minority of the population of both genders who are 'androgynous' - tall muscular women, women who find maths *easy*, men who find picking up language a 'cinch' but can't read a map to save their lives etc.. Anyway, the up-shot of this research has been to revolutionise thinking in education and teaching methods. Much has been spoken of gender segregation in high-schools for all sorts of reasons, but since this research was carried out - there is a move to more gender segregation in early childhood education..of basic spatial and language skills in particular. Boys getting more intensive auditory-learning techniques, and girls to get more practise at using their visual learning techniques and so on. Cheers - Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:53:20 -0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy Comments: To: Phoebe Wray In-Reply-To: <378d2670.2442c445@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I certainly believe that your thinking and feeling about academia is coming through very clearly. ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Phoebe Wray wrote: > In a message dated 4/12/99 3:31:24 AM, Jenniferwrote: > > < guilt out of the way.>> > > Oh gee, there ought not to be any guilt. If you have read widely and thought > deeply, that is really enough. We must not be stuck in academia, which is > most certainly circumscribed. > > We ought to say what we feel and think as clearly as we can. What else is > there? > > best > > phoebe > > Phoebe Wray > zozie!@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:17:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*] te... Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" In-Reply-To: <2c239a41.24422986@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > Madrone, who really really wanted a chemistry set for Christmas but was told > it was a boy toy and advised to get a doll.... That's about as horrible as me asking my mother for subscription to ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION and finding READER'S DIGEST in the mail instead. Seems she'd picked up an issue with a post-Toastie in it and felt "Oh, dear, this is far too horrible for me to give her to read."> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:32:45 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: OT - surnames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ironically, I must do what might be considered by some as committing a Stirling and point out that Stirling is spelled with an 'i'. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:06:38 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" In-Reply-To: <70da1cad.2442db27@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 4/11/99 5:59:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU > writes: > > << problem is that you can't know anything about the nature vs. nurture thing > absolutely, >> > > Mike. Please. See the science. We don't have all the answers yet, but do > have lots and the information is exploding right now. Want references? And > we will NEVER mistake you for Sterling. I promise. > > Madrone > I have read some of the science, but would welcome references to key materials (so long as they aren't over my head--I'm basically at the Science News level). My wife, however, is a reading specialist and brain organization is one of her areas of expertise. She reads the technical journals. Madrone, everything you've said about the environment influencing brain organization from birth is true, but evidently there are also studies that show physical differences at birth as well. In Sandy's opinion, at least, the jury is still out. You know there's more and more hard evidence that women have suffered seriously over the years because most medical research into things like heart disease, arthritis, stroke, lung cancer, etc. etc. has been conducted almost exclusively using male subjects. Only now are we discovering how differently women react to many of these diseases and particularly to medications prescribed based on exclusively male testing. This would seem to imply that the differences between the male and female body are even more pronounced (on some levels) than we have previously realized. Why not the brain as well? Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:25:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <70da1cad.2442db27@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > << problem is that you can't know anything about the nature vs. nurture thing > absolutely, >> > > Mike. Please. See the science. We don't have all the answers yet, but do > have lots and the information is exploding right now. Want references? And > we will NEVER mistake you for Sterling. I promise. No no, really, we don't know. Yes, this is a growing field of research, and we're getting more and more answers all the time, but there's no coherent picture growing out of those answers. Or rather, the coherent picture growing is one of complex variable--in other words, we're finding that at best it's both nature -and- nurture, at worst we'll never be able to separate out influences of culture from influences of biology. I believe very strongly that there are overwhelming and pervasive cultural influences that push people towards gender-stereotyped behavior. To me, though, this doesn't mean that there's no biological component to that behavior, it just means that we'll never be able to separate it out in any kind of scientific way. I think there very well might be a biological component, but it's neither nature nor nurture that makes us who we are, it's a subtle and complicated combination of them. I don't think it's right at all to say "boys will just be this way, and girls will just be this way." I also don't think it does us any good to say "there's no inherent difference between boys and girls". I mean, we don't know, do we? We can't know. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "One must not use the Scriptures as the drunk uses the lamppost -- for support rather than for illumination." --Rev. Peter Gomes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:33:10 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: OT: Raising androgynous children. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/99 12:59:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU writes: << they found that in most of the girls, both sides of the brain were 'active' in processing auditory information - but the boys were only actively using one side. >> The problem with this is in assuming that boys and girls are born this way. There is a great deal of evidence showing that the anatomy of the brain, and, hence, its function, depends on how the infant/toddler is raised. And this shaping of the brain begins immediately after birth. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:18:30 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: BGD: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel > I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some > reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts > education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little > intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like > Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable > read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep > me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far > away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see > myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers > like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and > read it. > > I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this > guilt out of the way. Jennifer! You are far more intellectually accomplished than you give yourself credit for. A person doesn't need an academic background or an assortment of degrees. My grandfather didn't receive his highschool diploma until he was in his seventies, when he decided to go back to school. English wasn't even his native language. But he had a wonderfully sharp intellect and valued the development of the mind in all his children and grandchildren, a legacy he bequeathed to my father. Or to put it another way: I =am= from the academic world. I've a PhD from Harvard, from what it's worth, and before I decided to write full time I was a physics professor at a ritzy liberal arts college. And I found JARAN intellectually stimulating. Not only because it gave me a lot to think about, but also because it was fun to read. In fact, I get bored with "easy" books. No matter how much I like a story, I don't usually find it enjoyable unless it either piques my mind or else is so beautifully written that the prose sings to me. There's nothing wrong with also enjoying the fiction that gives us useful insights to ponder. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:13 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, perhaps but more likely not. I figure your response was sarcastic but I will respond seriously. I intended no offense by what I said. In fact I'd say it's more the case that I'm jealous of people who have a liberal arts training and wish I could throw around ideas like that with confidence. The reality is that any time I think I've arrived at some insight or understanding about something I've read, I just assume lots of people have already been there and in fact moved way on ahead. So it's an act of courage each time I post something to this list. I know for sure there are at least a few others who have the same hesitation. When I do post, I try to do it as a regular-gal-on-the-street voice in an attempt to keep some level of visibility for those of us who feel intimidated from many of the conversations or postings. I see that sometimes I go too far in this and imply distaste for a more academic approach. I am sorry I gave that impression, and I do enjoy and try to learn from each person on the list. Please continue! Just know that sometimes when I don't join in, it's not from lack of interest. In fact my whole positioning of Jaran as "mind candy" was defensive as well as deliberately provocative. I felt as if something as accessible as Jaran might be less challenging and thus less interesting to many of you and wanted to offer a way for someone to describe that. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com At 08:53 AM 04/12/99 -0300, you wrote: >I certainly believe that your thinking and feeling about academia is >coming through very clearly. > >************************************************************** >Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca >Department of English >Dalhousie University >HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 > > ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever >************************************************************** > >On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Phoebe Wray wrote: > >> In a message dated 4/12/99 3:31:24 AM, Jenniferwrote: >> >> <> guilt out of the way.>> >> >> Oh gee, there ought not to be any guilt. If you have read widely and thought >> deeply, that is really enough. We must not be stuck in academia, which is >> most certainly circumscribed. >> >> We ought to say what we feel and think as clearly as we can. What else is >> there? >> >> best >> >> phoebe >> >> Phoebe Wray >> zozie!@aol.com >> > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:46:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Query: Creative Anachronism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the reply & site! Frances ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:53:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: Searoad (was BGD: Jaran) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The idea of a book being "so beautifully written that the prose sings to me" brought LeGuin's "Searoad" immediately to mind. That describes my reaction to it exactly. I just read it this last week (took me a day or two; I had trouble putting it down). It was shelved with the rest of LeGuin's books under SF/F at Powell's, but it really doesn't have any overt SF/F elements at all. It's about the Oregon coast, and the people in a small fictional town somewhere between Tillamook and Cannon Beach. The last half of the book is an extended story of four generations of women who lived there from the turn of the century to the mid 70's (the fifth is born, but we never learn much about her), and it was VERY hard to keep track of who was who at first. I was tempted to look for the section headings with the years and read them all in chronological order, but I refrained; maybe I'll go back and do it later. I was uplifted by the strength of those four women in surviving what they did, and staying true to themselves, but I'm sure I missed some stuff while trying to figure out who was who and what was going on. The conversation between Virginia and her husband in Vermont got me SO upset I had to put the book down; I was shaking, I was so mad at him. I was _so_ glad that she stood firm and did what she knew she needed to. I'm from the Northwest, born+raised ouside Seattle, and have lived near Portland for the past 5 years. For as far back as I can remember (almost 30 years now, eek!), my parents brought us to a cabin in a small community on the Oregon coast (just outside of Tillamook) every summer. The place means a LOT to me. What struck me about the book is how REAL it is. Every single thing LeGuin wrote down could easily have happened. What got me is the reviews and blurbs at the back of the book talk about her wonderful "imaginary world" and how this is a culmination of LeGuin's fascination with "island cultures", and an extention of what she started in "always coming home". To which I said "HUH?" I asked my BF, who grew up in the midwest, and has only lived in the PNW for 5 years, and his thought was that by "island cultures", they might have meant "isolated" rather than literally "on an island". Fine, that makes sense to me (though the place isn't THAT isolated; the people have lots of contact with the rest of the world), but the rest doesn't. Always Coming Home _was_ an "imaginary world", with no grounding in our current culture at all, and as I recall, it took place in a forest (I could be wrong, it's been a while). Searoad is definitely taking place in our USA, on the Oregon coast. The characters are living in our world; we don't have to learn about any new culture. I see almost no correlation between them. So, to those of you who have read this book, would you be willing to share your reactions? Is my view of this book warped by the fact that it takes place in a location that means so much to me? Did the reviews strike you as odd? Did you see it as more SF/F than I did? And if so, what parts? For those of you who haven't read it, I highly recommend it (with the caveat that I may be extremely biased!) Thanks! -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Catherine Asaro [mailto:asaro@sff.net] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:18 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] BGD: Jaran > In fact, I get bored with "easy" books. No matter how much I like a > story, I don't usually find it enjoyable unless it either > piques my mind > or else is so beautifully written that the prose sings to me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:58:25 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought Pat Monk's response was a little sarcastic, too... what I was clumsily trying to say Catherine Asaro said eloquently. And now, I hope, this is all cleared up. Spiky list, this. best wishes, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:09:58 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11 Apr 99, at 23:17, michael levy wrote: > My oldest, now 23, is, I would say, mildly androgynous >[and > "still looking for love with youthful desperation and naivete"]. > He's a lot more into talking about his emotions than most young > men his age, and a lot more into caring about other people's > emotions. Unfortunately, this seems to cause many young women to > see him as the kind of guy with whom they just want to be > friends... To me, "androgynous" has always meant "hermaphrodite", or - less strongly - to denote a person whose sex (sic) is not immediately clear. And I believe this is the problem that such men have to face in their personal lives - most people find it difficult to deal with someone they cannot classify. For women, I think, it boils down to that fact that so many simply could not take an androgynous man seriously as a potential lover. For men - even liberal men - I think that homophobia plays a crucial role ("androgynous" = "effeminate" = "gay") although I might be overestimating this. Worst - "prejudice" affects the androgyne's working life because, again, they're rarely taken seriously in the workplace. Perhaps this is also because in business one's forced to size people up on very short acquaintance and some "androgynous" mannerisms can be offputting; inappropriately "talking about [their] emotions" and "caring about other people's emotions" can be infuriating at times. Added to that, most, perhaps almost all, supervisors find that androgynes are very high-maintenance subordinates and - unless they are equally highly-skilled - simply aren't worth the effort. But to return to sf/f: I think that the points I've mentioned about androgynes also contribute to the reasons why much feminist sf/f has been shunned by most men and many women. Contrary to much of what has been said on this list, I don't believe that the sidelining of feminist sf/f is because male and many sf/f readers dislike strong heroines The poularity of Honor Harrington with both genders proves otherwise) - I think it's because they dislike the "effeminate" males with which many feminist novels are populated (Sandoz in _The sparrow and _Children of God_, the servants in _The gate to women's country_ , for example). AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:28:14 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11 Apr 1999, at 12:36, Madrone (Demetria M. Shew) wrote: > Hm. OK, once more into the breach... > The anatomy of our brains reflects our environment. Your comments, here and elsewhere, imply that the brain is some sort of isolated computer affected most strongly by cultural influences. Nothing could be further from the truth as an enormous amount of research has shown. The immediate environment of the brain - and hence the most important from the development viewpoint - is the body which houses it. The brain must surely reflect its containing body far more than any outside influence - if only because the great majority of the brain is devoted to the "operating system" for the body. To return to the subject of this debate: female sexual organs - especially during menstruation and child-bearing/rearing - consume far more resources than their male "equivalents" so female brains have evolved behaviour-controlling mechanisms for the efficient use of such costly organs. These mechanisms - including an "instinct" for nurturing which *most* female members of every mammalian species necessarily have - evolved over many thousand generations and haven't vanished in a few years of political correctness. This *doesn't* mean that women are doomed by their wombs to be inferior - simply that they are, in significant ways, different. And I for one am immensely grateful! Suggesting that women have "instincts" differing from those of men, isn't being sexist - it's being scientific and acknowledging our biological heritage. So let me say "See the science. We don't have all the answers yet, but do have lots and the information is exploding right now. Want references?" On the other hand, there are some people who believe that biology is just a patriarchal plot... AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:24:23 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: BDG: Jaran/hard SF exposition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce wrote: > What I'm saying is that I do not plan to plow through completely meaningless > (to me) novels in a certain classification in order to find the ones that reflect my > life. If Jaran is one of the good ones, and many folk on the list seem to > think it is, it reinforces my view that romance novels do not speak to me in > a meaningful way. ... > Along with romance novels, I have always dismissed mysteries as a > type of fiction that just didn't appeal to me. Then I discovered Prime > Suspect, Cracker, Silent Witness and Abigail Padgett. I love them all and > now know there are mysteries I can enjoy. In reading these posts, a thought occurred to me. Although the JARAN series is usually described as softer science fiction, it is actually written in the style of hard SF. In fact, Elliott brings in a great deal of philsophical commentary on human aggression and conquest, particularly in the later books, which she presents much in the style of hard SF exposition. It is subtle because she is writing about different subjects than those usually associated with hard SF. I think she achieves a unique, even brilliant, combination of styles. However, expository writing is a literary device that doesn't appeal to everyone. Nor should it; we all have different tastes, and everyone's taste is valid. I know some of my own fans, after reading my first two books, said, "I really like the characters, but I just skimmed the science." For those first two books, my audience initially split three ways, with about one third wanting more science, one third liking the books the way they were, and one third wanting less. However, as the audience has widened, I've found the "less is better" group increasing the fastest. It doesn't seem to have much connection to the preferred genre, though; I get romance readers saying "I really liked the science" and hard SF readers saying "I really liked the love story." I finally decided to ease up on the SF exposition and perhaps include it in an essay at the end instead, so interested readers could enjoy it without having it slow down the plot, whereas readers who weren't interested could skip it without losing parts of the story. What I'm wondering, after reading your post, is if the expository style of JARAN is what put you off. Although I've often recommended JARAN to friends who are seeking science fiction with a strong romantic component, it isn't actually genre romance; it's thoroughly science fiction. The first romances I tried, many years ago, didn't appeal to me much. I was picking out futuristics, because of their science fiction component. Ironically, futuristics have turned out to be the area of romance I like least, primarily due to sexist or annoying portrayals of the male and female leads, but also because of weak world building. You would think that futuristics, which look to the future, would have the most progressive portrayals of women. Yet when I read them, I sometimes feel I've gone back to how women were portrayed in old SF movies. The most feminst genre romances are actually the historicals and contemporary suspense novels. It wasn't until I got on-line and found on romance listservs, where people discuss the various books and authors, that I developed a feel for which romances would appeal to me. I discovered I thoroughly enjoyed the genre, but =only= certain authors. Others drive me up the wall. It could be that romance isn't your cup of tea, and if so, then you're absolutely right, there is no reason to spend with them. But it might be worth a look at a few more first. Although I'm not familiar with the mysteries you describe above, seeing you post the list made me think you might be open to a few suggestions. Science fiction romance: "Forgiveness Day," by Ursula Le Guin. =Shards of Honor,= by Lois McMaster Bujold =The Moon and the Sun,= by Vonda McIntyre. "Forgiveness day" is a beautifully done novella. I don't know if Le Guin intentionally wrote it as a romance, but it very much follows the conventions of the genre. In fact, it's one flaw (IMO) is a flaw associated with romance rather than science fiction, which is that the story skims over the actual action climax of the plot. Once the love story is resolved, it rushes to the end too fast. However, this is a minor point; overall I enjoyed the story. =Shards of Honor= is another good one. Actually, the full story is SOH and its sequel Barrayar. Although Barrayar isn't technically a romance, it involves many issues treated in romance, with its focus on what the Cordelia, the female lead, values rather than on the war the men are fighting. The scene where Cordelia walks into the battle strategy session conducted by her husband and shows him what she brought in her "shopping bag" has got to be one of the best "ye gods!" scenes in SF. Vonda's book is science fiction rather than romance and the love story isn't as central as in the other two, but it does have aspects of historical romance. This is also a book with exposition, in this case a shimmeringly beautiful depiction of the court of the Sun King, Louis XIV. I loved it, in part because of that, but also because it is a genuine, accurate portrayal of what it was like for female scientists in France during that era. I've always enjoyed (well-written) exposition, though. Badly written expostiion drives me up the wall! I've a review of The Moon and the Sun up at Sf Site, at: http://www.sfsite.com/01b/moon49.htm Fantasy romance =The Bride Finder,= by Susan Carroll =This is All I Ask,= by Lynn Kurland. (The fantasy aspect is slim, but I very much liked the characters) =Archangel,= by Sharon Shinn Archangel is actually science fiction, but it has an effective fantasy feel to it and won a fantasy award. The other two are genre romance. I've brief reviews of =The Bride Finder= and =This is All I Ask= up at Amazon.com. Kurland's book has a blind male lead, which is done with sensitivity. She also wrote an entertaining role-reversal medieval romance called "The Very Thought of You." Watching the disguised heroine, a strapping female knight, abduct and later rescue a Wall-Street big shot tossed back to medieval times was a hoot. I didn't as much like the ambiguity toward the end, where the knight didn't get her chance to joust with the Wall Street fellow. But overall the book is fun. Kate Elliot's third of the book =The Golden Key= also has a wonderful romance (it's the last third of the novel). This book has a different feel from Jaran. I've a review of it up at: http://www.sfsite.com/10a/gold18.htm Contemporary =Wildest Dreams,= by Jayne Ann Krentz. This is another I really enjoyed. It also a bit of a mystery. Since I also don't usually like mysteries, I figured if I liked this one, it must work on more than a few levels. Krentz's work is sharp, snappy, feminist, and entertaining. Historical =One Perfect Rose,= by Mary Jo Putney. =River of Fire,= by Mary Jo Putney. Putney is an outspoken feminist who imbues her work with those ideals, particularly her more recents works. =The Rake= is another good one. She also has a book called =The Wild Child= that will be out soon, which comments effectively on the hypocrisy involved in attempts to control strong/independent women by claiming they are "hysterical" or supposedly have "emotional problems." I posted a shirt review of the Putney novel at Amazon.com Regency (early 1800's in England) =Ravished,= by Amanda Quick. The title is satirical! I almost didn't read this one because of the title. But I had heard a great deal about it, so finally I gave it a try. It's a delightful satire on the "compromised woman" nonsense. Not only is no one "ravished" in this book, but the exasperated male lead has a devil of a time getting the female lead's attention after they spend a pleasant night together. She's quite happy being a spinster and natural scientist. Quick (a pen name for Jayne Ann Krentz) is an outspoken feminist who skewers sexist literary conventions with humor and aclarity. Some of the funniest lines in the book come from the annoyed heroine's comments about her misplaced virginity: ("Well, here it is only a few hours after finding myself ruined, yet I do not feel any of the remorse and despair one would expect after sacrificing one's precious virginity ... it's not like I was planning to do anything all that interesting with it.") I also have a particular fondness for romances about a big, quiet man who is bemused and enamored by a small, independent-minded woman. This may have something to do with my being a small, independent-minded woman married to a large, quiet, enamored, and often bemused male. Many of Amanda Quick's regencies are well done, with engaging characters. They get a bit the same after a while, but recently she's been branching out more. --- Jessie made an excellent comment earlier, which is that some romances have their own conventions, just as SF and fantasy do. Those conventions, unless done well, can irk readers from other genres. The Kurland books probably fall into that category more than the others I've described above (I still enjoyed them, though). The ones that best transcend genre may be the Krentz contemporaries, the McIntyre, and the Putney novels. The Bujold and Le Guin are definitely science fiction, but they do the conventions well. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:49:42 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: BGD: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I'm confused. I think I messed up a posting somewhere. I started a message with comments on two different posts, then separated them into different messages when I was half finished. When I sent the first one, I got a "rejected because you already submitted" message. I'm not sure exactly what I did, and I only get the digest, so I have no idea what happened. I apologize to you folks out there if these messages came through twice! but whatever happened, this is the final, correct message. Signed -- Catherine "I'm certainly embarrassed" Asaro Jennifer Krauel > I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some > reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts > education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little > intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like > Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable > read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep > me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far > away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see > myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers > like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and > read it. > > I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this > guilt out of the way. Jennifer! You are far more intellectually accomplished than you give yourself credit for. A person doesn't need an academic background or an assortment of degrees. My grandfather didn't receive his highschool diploma until he was in his seventies, when he decided to go back to school. English wasn't even his native language. But he had a wonderfully sharp intellect and valued the development of the mind in all his children and grandchildren, a legacy he bequeathed to my father. Or to put it another way: I =am= from the academic world. I've a PhD from Harvard, from what it's worth, and before I decided to write full time I was a physics professor at a ritzy liberal arts college. And I found JARAN intellectually stimulating. Not only because it gave me a lot to think about, but also because it was fun to read. In fact, I get bored with "easy" books. No matter how much I like a story, I don't usually find it enjoyable unless it either piques my mind or else is so beautifully written that the prose sings to me. There's nothing wrong with also enjoying the fiction that gives us useful insights to ponder. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:31:37 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Well, I'm stupid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just got a second notice about a rejected-because-already-posted post. I can't figure out what the heck I did! Joybe, if you got a half finished post from me that didn't make sense, please accept my apologies. This is the one that was supposed to go through. Usually I get a copy of an email when I send it. I didn't get a copy of this one, so I can't figure out what happened. Being on the digest has its disadvantages. Signed -- Catherine "The dolt" Asaro. Joyce wrote: > What I'm saying is that I do not plan to plow through completely meaningless > (to me) novels in a certain classification in order to find the ones that reflect my > life. If Jaran is one of the good ones, and many folk on the list seem to > think it is, it reinforces my view that romance novels do not speak to me in > a meaningful way. ... > Along with romance novels, I have always dismissed mysteries as a > type of fiction that just didn't appeal to me. Then I discovered Prime > Suspect, Cracker, Silent Witness and Abigail Padgett. I love them all and > now know there are mysteries I can enjoy. In reading these posts, a thought occurred to me. Although the JARAN series is usually described as softer science fiction, it is actually written in the style of hard SF. In fact, Elliott brings in a great deal of philsophical commentary on human aggression and conquest, particularly in the later books, which she presents much in the style of hard SF exposition. It is subtle because she is writing about different subjects than those usually associated with hard SF. I think she achieves a unique, even brilliant, combination of styles. However, expository writing is a literary device that doesn't appeal to everyone. Nor should it; we all have different tastes, and everyone's taste is valid. I know some of my own fans, after reading my first two books, said, "I really like the characters, but I just skimmed the science." For those first two books, my audience initially split three ways, with about one third wanting more science, one third liking the books the way they were, and one third wanting less. However, as the audience has widened, I've found the "less is better" group increasing the fastest. It doesn't seem to have much connection to the preferred genre, though; I get romance readers saying "I really liked the science" and hard SF readers saying "I really liked the love story." I finally decided to ease up on the SF exposition and perhaps include it in an essay at the end instead, so interested readers could enjoy it without having it slow down the plot, whereas readers who weren't interested could skip it without losing parts of the story. What I'm wondering, after reading your post, is if the expository style of JARAN is what put you off. Although I've often recommended JARAN to friends who are seeking science fiction with a strong romantic component, it isn't actually genre romance; it's thoroughly science fiction. The first romances I tried, many years ago, didn't appeal to me much. I was picking out futuristics, because of their science fiction component. Ironically, futuristics have turned out to be the area of romance I like least, primarily due to sexist or annoying portrayals of the male and female leads, but also because of weak world building. You would think that futuristics, which look to the future, would have the most progressive portrayals of women. Yet when I read them, I sometimes feel I've gone back to how women were portrayed in old SF movies. The most feminst genre romances are actually the historicals and contemporary suspense novels. It wasn't until I got on-line and found on romance listservs, where people discuss the various books and authors, that I developed a feel for which romances would appeal to me. I discovered I thoroughly enjoyed the genre, but =only= certain authors. Others drive me up the wall. It could be that romance isn't your cup of tea, and if so, then you're absolutely right, there is no reason to spend with them. But it might be worth a look at a few more first. Although I'm not familiar with the mysteries you describe above, seeing you post the list made me think you might be open to a few suggestions. Science fiction romance: "Forgiveness Day," by Ursula Le Guin. =Shards of Honor,= by Lois McMaster Bujold =The Moon and the Sun,= by Vonda McIntyre. "Forgiveness day" is a beautifully done novella. I don't know if Le Guin intentionally wrote it as a romance, but it very much follows the conventions of the genre. In fact, it's one flaw (IMO) is a flaw associated with romance rather than science fiction, which is that the story skims over the actual action climax of the plot. Once the love story is resolved, it rushes to the end too fast. However, this is a minor point; overall I enjoyed the story. =Shards of Honor= is another good one. Actually, the full story is SOH and its sequel Barrayar. Although Barrayar isn't technically a romance, it involves many issues treated in romance, with its focus on what the Cordelia, the female lead, values rather than on the war the men are fighting. The scene where Cordelia walks into the battle strategy session conducted by her husband and shows him what she brought in her "shopping bag" has got to be one of the best "ye gods!" scenes in SF. Vonda's book is science fiction rather than romance and the love story isn't as central as in the other two, but it does have aspects of historical romance. This is also a book with exposition, in this case a shimmeringly beautiful depiction of the court of the Sun King, Louis XIV. I loved it, in part because of that, but also because it is a genuine, accurate portrayal of what it was like for female scientists in France during that era. I've always enjoyed (well-written) exposition, though. Badly written expostiion drives me up the wall! I've a review of The Moon and the Sun up at Sf Site, at: http://www.sfsite.com/01b/moon49.htm Fantasy romance =The Bride Finder,= by Susan Carroll =This is All I Ask,= by Lynn Kurland. (The fantasy aspect is slim, but I very much liked the characters) =Archangel,= by Sharon Shinn Archangel is actually science fiction, but it has an effective fantasy feel to it and won a fantasy award. The other two are genre romance. I've brief reviews of =The Bride Finder= and =This is All I Ask= up at Amazon.com. Kurland's book has a blind male lead, which is done with sensitivity. She also wrote an entertaining role-reversal medieval romance called "The Very Thought of You." Watching the disguised heroine, a strapping female knight, abduct and later rescue a Wall-Street big shot tossed back to medieval times was a hoot. I didn't as much like the ambiguity toward the end, where the knight didn't get her chance to joust with the Wall Street fellow. But overall the book is fun. Kate Elliot's third of the book =The Golden Key= also has a wonderful romance (it's the last third of the novel). This book has a different feel from Jaran. I've a review of it up at: http://www.sfsite.com/10a/gold18.htm Contemporary =Wildest Dreams,= by Jayne Ann Krentz. This is another I really enjoyed. It also a bit of a mystery. Since I also don't usually like mysteries, I figured if I liked this one, it must work on more than a few levels. Krentz's work is sharp, snappy, feminist, and entertaining. Historical =One Perfect Rose,= by Mary Jo Putney. =River of Fire,= by Mary Jo Putney. Putney is an outspoken feminist who imbues her work with those ideals, particularly her more recents works. =The Rake= is another good one. She also has a book called =The Wild Child= that will be out soon, which comments effectively on the hypocrisy involved in attempts to control strong/independent women by claiming they are "hysterical" or supposedly have "emotional problems." I posted a shirt review of the Putney novel at Amazon.com Regency (early 1800's in England) =Ravished,= by Amanda Quick. The title is satirical! I almost didn't read this one because of the title. But I had heard a great deal about it, so finally I gave it a try. It's a delightful satire on the "compromised woman" nonsense. Not only is no one "ravished" in this book, but the exasperated male lead has a devil of a time getting the female lead's attention after they spend a pleasant night together. She's quite happy being a spinster and natural scientist. Quick (a pen name for Jayne Ann Krentz) is an outspoken feminist who skewers sexist literary conventions with humor and aclarity. Some of the funniest lines in the book come from the annoyed heroine's comments about her misplaced virginity: ("Well, here it is only a few hours after finding myself ruined, yet I do not feel any of the remorse and despair one would expect after sacrificing one's precious virginity ... it's not like I was planning to do anything all that interesting with it.") I also have a particular fondness for romances about a big, quiet man who is bemused and enamored by a small, independent-minded woman. This may have something to do with my being a small, independent-minded woman married to a large, quiet, enamored, and often bemused male. Many of Amanda Quick's regencies are well done, with engaging characters. They get a bit the same after a while, but recently she's been branching out more. --- Jessie made an excellent comment earlier, which is that some romances have their own conventions, just as SF and fantasy do. Those conventions, unless done well, can irk readers from other genres. The Kurland books probably fall into that category more than the others I've described above (I still enjoyed them, though). The ones that best transcend genre may be the Krentz contemporaries, the McIntyre, and the Putney novels. The Bujold and Le Guin are definitely science fiction, but they do the conventions well. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:35:01 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Retry. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmmm. THe listserve keeps tellingme it is rejecting posts because I already sent them. I change the text in the post and send again, and it rejects them again. So this is a test. Joyce and Jennifer, if you got a post from me, that wasn't the final product. I had better info. I split them up in two and may have hit send instead of cancel. That's the only reason I can figure why I keep getting these notes. Since I'm on the digest, I can't tell what, if anything, actually came through. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:02:22 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Driving Jennifer nuts. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Things seem to be working again. I will try this bereft essage one more time. Jennifer and everyone, if you've received three copies of this, I will go sit in the corner and look appropriate bemused and embarrassed. Anyway, here it is ... > Well, I'm confused. I think I messed up a posting somewhere. I started > a message with comments on two different posts, then separated them into > different messages when I was half finished. When I sent the first one, > I got a "rejected because you already submitted" message. I'm not sure > exactly what I did, and I only get the digest, so I have no idea what > happened. I apologize to you folks out there if these messages came > through twice! but whatever happened, this is the final, correct message. > Jennifer Krauel > > > I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some > > reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts > > education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little > > intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like > > Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable > > read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep > > me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far > > away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see > > myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers > > like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and > > read it. > > > > I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this > > guilt out of the way. > > Jennifer! You are far more intellectually accomplished than you give > yourself credit for. A person doesn't need an academic background or an > assortment of degrees. My grandfather didn't receive his highschool > diploma until he was in his seventies, when he decided to go back to > school. English wasn't even his native language. But he had a > wonderfully sharp intellect and valued the development of the mind in > all his children and grandchildren, a legacy he bequeathed to my father. > > Or to put it another way: I =am= from the academic world. I've a PhD > from Harvard, from what it's worth, and before I decided to write full > time I was a physics professor at a ritzy liberal arts college. And I > found JARAN intellectually stimulating. Not only because it gave me a > lot to think about, but also because it was fun to read. > > In fact, I get bored with "easy" books. No matter how much I like a > story, I don't usually find it enjoyable unless it either piques my mind > or else is so beautifully written that the prose sings to me. > > There's nothing wrong with also enjoying the fiction that gives us > useful insights to ponder. > > -- > Best regards > Catherine Asaro > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:19:52 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/99 10:28:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ajhs@USA.NET writes: << Your comments, here and elsewhere, imply that the brain is some sort of isolated computer affected most strongly by cultural influences. >> I don't see it that way at all. The brain is connected directly to the environment. If you put a blindfold on a child until she/he was ten, and then took the blindfold off, the child would never be able to see because the window of development for the part of the brain that interprets vision is past. How the child eventually sees and hears also depends on what the environmental experience is. For instance, language. In early development, a child goes through a process of "pruning" neurons. If certain sounds are heard, they can be heard later in life, If not, then not. There are some words in Innuit, for example, which sound identical to outsiders but show clear difference when measured by machine. But since the outsiders did not hear the sounds when they were children, that part of their brain got "pruned" and they cannot hear it now. This is why adults who learn languages later in life usually have an accent. They are actually not hearing much of the difference. Whether or not the parts of the brain that deal with vision, hearing, language, etc., develop depends on their being stimulated in the child at the appropriate time. If they do not get stimulated, then they will not get developed in the adult. I think we, in our culture at least, don't like to think we are connected to the environment or than humanness is something attained after appropriate development rather than a simple given. I don't think we like to think of limits, such as windows of development that, once missed, are gone forever. And I don't think we like to imagine that living as strictly gendered individuals is actually a limited and possible lesser human state of being. As to nurture....um, actually, the separation out of nurturance by gender does appear to a great extent to be cultural. There are certainly cultures where the men are nurturing and what we would call nonviolent. That's why no one can just come out and say males are different (non-nurturing, more active, etc.). There are cultures which disprove this. I do agree that one of the problems with feminist science fiction is that many characters are androgynous, in that they show characteristics that are human rather than gendered. Gender is an iffy thing when you study biology and botany. Gender in the individual can change by season or temperature, if one gender is missing or limited, over time, or randomly. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:30:07 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 12 Apr 99, at 9:30, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I intended no offense by what I said. > In fact I'd say it's more the case that > I'm jealous of people who have a liberal arts > training and wish I could throw around ideas > like that with confidence. Should Jennifer have apologised for thinking that _Jaran_ was "mind candy"? I *personally* think that Jennifer formed a reasonable, perfectly plausible theory based on acute, rational reasoning which she explained clearly. So I don't think she should have apologised. Kate Elliott wrote a highly _enjoyable_ book (I rated it ****-), aimed at the general sf reading public. So it is by that standard that her work should be judged. _Jaran_ and her subsequent book have sold reasonably well - proving that she succeeded. Elliott made no pretensions to intellectualism; she wrote a clear, easily understood work; and (incidently) she wrote the book in what I thought was a stereotypical "romance" theme. I don't mean "stereotypical" pejoratively; like other genres, "romance writing" has its conventions and well-written romance can be just as enjoyable as any other genre. I *personally* couldn't take a full-blown romance novel but I thought that _Jaran_ had much more to recommend it. But in the end, it really was "mind candy". I also don't agree with Jennifer's "... jealous of people who have a liberal arts training and wish I could throw around ideas like that with confidence". Any person with a good knowledge of English is just as "qualified" to read the books discussed on this forum as anyone else. The insights that come from academia are no more valid than Jennifer's (or mine come to that) just because they sound more "intellectual" (whatever that means). I'm afraid that we in the natural, technological and economic sciences seem to give the liberal arts" a sort of automatic, unearned respect. Harold Bloom put it better than I ever could in _The Western Canon_ (especially the Preface and Prelude) when he discusses what he calls the "anxiety of influence" and the "School of Resentment". I always recommend his and Terry Eagleburger's books to scientists and engineers infected with the "awed by liberal arts" virus; they never fail to cure the patient! Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:44:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: medianstrip.net Feminism Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII One more posting--there's about a week left until the initial deadline. Please participate, it will be a great project if we can pull it together! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Contribute to the Medianstrip "Voices of Feminism" project! We're working on putting together an online collection of perspectives on feminism today, and we want your help. One of our goals is to have as many different voices as possible participating, with as many different viewpoints as we can. How can you help? The simplest way is to write a short piece for inclusion in the project. We're looking for answers to questions like Why do you call yourself a feminist? Why don't you call yourself a feminist? What does it mean to you to be or not be a feminist? But if you have something that you want to say that doesn't directly relate to those questions, please send it in anyway! Anonymous and psuedonymous contributions also welcom. Contributions should be emailed to bast@medianstrip.net. To be included in the initial release (approximately 25 April), we need to have your piece by Monday, 19 April. Thank you! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:42:12 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: References MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have given several references (did they come through?) on brain development and the environment. If you would like to see a video that showcases Dr. Perry's work (and shows the brain scans) than you can do so by sending to the following address. Hope this is not construed as advertising...really just a reference. The video is in three segments, the middle one is on brain development. send $12.95 requesting a copy of the video, "Handle with Care" to: KCPQ/TV 1813 Westlake Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 Attention Marty Gustafson. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:14:51 -0700 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: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: > I'm afraid that we in the natural, technological and economic sciences seem > to give the liberal arts" a sort of automatic, unearned respect. Harold Bloom > put it better than I ever could in _The Western Canon_ (especially > the Preface and Prelude) when he discusses what he calls the "anxiety of > influence" and the "School of Resentment". I always recommend his and Terry > Eagleburger's books to scientists and engineers infected with the "awed by > liberal arts" virus; they never fail to cure the patient! > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) Do you mean Eagleburger or Eagleton? I'm amazed to hear about the automatic respect given the liberal arts. Where I live and work, we have to fight for every inch of respect, not to be taken for granted ("anyone can read or and write"). Possibly there's more snob appeal to liberal arts in the UK, but in the US (at non-elitist universities) we have to make students aware that careful reading is not automatic. They know science and math are hard work but they think literature should be easy. What's "hard" is the amount of dues (e.g., years and texts) one has to pay in order to recognize at a glance what an "untutored" reader would not (though most of those conventions and practices can be learned outside the academy, some by intellectual osmosis), and the uncertainty and contingency of almost any knowledge or interpretation in literary study. It keeps me (relatively) humble, rather than arrogant (in my own eyes at least). You can only learn so much from a cookbook; you have to taste and digest and excrete before you really know what you've read and understood, and it keeps changing as you get older and more experienced. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:33:30 -0500 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: References Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thanks for the references, I checked for Bruce Perry and Marion Cleves Diamond in our university library. The only Diamond book we've got is Enriching Heredity which, from its description, sounds like what you're talking about, but it's from 1988, so I assume there's something newer. I'll have to check other libraries. The only Bruce Perry we had anything by was on hotel and restaurant management, so I assume I've got the wrong guy. 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: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:03:30 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: References MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/99 1:34:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: << I checked for Bruce Perry and Marion Cleves Diamond i >> Check at amazon.com for the books, or barnes&noble etc. You should check the journal references for Dr. Perry as he has published a lot of work on the development of traumatized children. See also some doozies: "Sex and environmental influences on the size and ultrastructure of the rat corpus callosum" Juraskand Kopcik, Brain Research 450 (1988) 1-8......have previously found that sex differences can vary with the rearing environment. They did find sex differences in the structure of the rat brain, but the difference was influenced by the environment. ALSO "Corpus callosum Interactive Effects of Infantile Handling and Testosterone in the Rat" by Victor Denenbert...Again, sex differences were seen, but rats that were handled (Oooooh, you cute widdle thing) had larger corpus callosa than those not handled. In primates, the corpus is larger in females than in males. There is a wide range of measurements, and it is postulated that this is due to environmental effects. The corpus is the bundle of tissue that joins the two halves of the brain and allows for communication between the hemispheres. I have noticed two main types of study: measurement and observe, which then builds hypothesis as thought the measured and observed characteristics were immutable, and measurement and observe which then leads to questions of Why and How the differences or observations arose. The first one is open to wonderful interpretations, such as finding that the male brain is lateralized and the corpus callosum smaller, and hypothesizing that this is so men can kill animals during the hunt without suffering qualms of empathy. The second method would study the development of the brain and question what in the environment shaped the anatomy. Interesting stuff. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:19:34 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: brahms Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > That's about as horrible as me asking my mother for subscription > to ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION and finding READER'S DIGEST in the mail > instead. Seems she'd picked up an issue with a post-Toastie in it and > felt "Oh, dear, this is far too horrible for me to give her to read."> > What is a post-Toastie?????! I am boggled. -Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:57:30 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. Was: Re: [*FSFFU*] In-Reply-To: <000201be852a$297f93e0$fbb02399@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, brahms wrote: > What is a post-Toastie?????! I am boggled. > > -Rachel After the bomb or whatever else destroyed civilization in 50s-60s-70s science fiction.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:32:06 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: References also MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My apologies for the sporadicity of my posts...am teaching five community college science courses this quarter and catch my mail between tasks... See also "Ghosts from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence", Robin Karr-Morse. This is a good popular work with an excellent reference list. "The developmental years are not just a chance to educate, they're actually your obligation to form a brain and if you miss these opportunities then...you've missed them...forever." page 32. Violent behavior is most likely to occur when a young child's experiences result in lack of adequate stimulation to the cortex....together with overstimulation of the alarm system (limbic system). According to (Dr.) Perry, if those experiences are chronic and occur early enough, a state of hyperarousal or of numbing may become a permanent trait in a child, setting the stage for a host of learning and behavioral problems." Read: guess what we are doing to all the children in Kosovo and Yogoslavia, friend and foe alike. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:50:17 -0400 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: References In-Reply-To: <19163123.2443b9a2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One very influential book on the topic of gender differences in brain structure has been *Brain Sex*. There was quite a lot of media coverage of it in the United States. Sadly, it's not particularly scientific. B.C. Holmes, a transgendered Canadian, has some very pointed things to say about it at zir web page: http://www.interlog.com/~bcholmes/brainsex.html. Zie also quotes quite a bit from a book by Anne Fausto-Sterling called *Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men*, which sounds quite good. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "...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: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:58:24 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "hey pixie, pixie" Subject: s-f/f romance; tepper question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain i'm really enjoying this discussion of 'mind candy,' romance, etc. i have to say i would've caught myself instinctively turning up my nose @ romances, for the old typical reasons, except a few months ago i heard someone refer to kate elliott's _crown of stars_ series as s-f/f romance. this insulted me @ first, b/c so far i'm really really loving the books... & then i thought about it, & came to some of the same conclusions that folks here are mentioning: romance isn't what most people think it is & there's some really worthwhile writing in the genre. thanks, catherine, for your suggestions to joyce. i'm going to have to add some of them to my reading list (i just read "forgiveness day" & thought it was brill!). now i've got a question about something completely different: i'm rereading sheri tepper's _beauty_ & i'm discovering all these italicized comments fr. carabosse which i REALLY don't remember being there the first time i read the book, which was last summer in england. now i'm reading an american edition. & i know this sounds really odd, but is there a chance that maybe the british edition didn't have carabosse's interjections? they're really bringing down the enjoyment of the story for me, & i can't imagine that they could have been there in such force last summer when i unreservedly adored the book. mind you, i was doing my dissertation @ the time, & so a frazzled state of mind might account for not remembering them. but still... seems strange. johanna _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:13:22 -0400 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: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <19990412170952.20669.qmail@nw176.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:09 PM 4/12/99 -0500, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: >Added to that, most, perhaps almost all, supervisors >find that androgynes are very high-maintenance subordinates and - unless they >are equally highly-skilled - simply aren't worth the effort. Ahem... based upon what evidence? A questionnaire? I shudder to think of a group of supervisors meeting to discuss their problems with those damn androgynes, who come across in your message as a fleet of identical swish gay men. (What about all the silent, stiff-upper-lipped androgynous *women*?) The word "androgynous" is not particularly precise, so it seems strange to me that you are treating it as if it denotes a recognizable group, against whom discrimination is apparently warranted. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "...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: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:15:38 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marge Simpson Subject: BGD:JARAN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I wasn't going to read "Jaran" until I started reading all the comments and strong reactions in the discussion. I'm not very fond of fantasy...uh oh, I'm gonna generalize....it all seems too silly and unbelievable...but I have read Elliott's Prince of Dogs series and have loved it. And I am so glad for the romance and mind candy discussions. I now want to try other fantasies and look for the good stuff I've been missing (suggestions?) As to "Jaran", it is a romance novel (and yes, I read many, many of those as a curious teen). What kept me turning the pages so furiously was the romance element. Tho I have to express my frustration with some elements of that. Forgive me, but I felt the romance got in the way of a fabulous story and interesting ideas. I felt it should have been a part of the story, but not the whole story. And that is just my personal taste. There are many of you who love it for the romance...... And I'm afraid that at times, the characters and story were reduced to 2 dimensionality with romantic cliches that did not ring true with me( the forced "rape" scene, too many wink wink, nudge nudge comments from other Jaran). I felt that what made the book "mind candy" for many was the romance. That ole guilt thing. I can't wait to read the next in the series, because it is an excellent story. As for the academic vs non academic discussion....yes, several of you are intimidating...but who cares, that's what makes this all so interesting. Thanks Ann _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:43:59 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12 Apr 99, at 20:13, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > Ahem... based upon what evidence? A questionnaire? > I shudder to think of a group of supervisors meeting > to discuss their problems with those damn > androgynes, who come across in your message > as a fleet of identical swish gay men. > (What about all the silent, stiff-upper-lipped > androgynous *women*?) The evidence of Gabrielle Pascal's _Layoffs : a guide to retrenchment procedures_ (Section 11.9) and my own very extensive observations on the selection of personnel in "right-sizing/down-sizing" situations. "High maintenance" has nothing to do with whether employees are "swish gay men" (rather homophobic statement). "Maintenance" refers to time a supervisor must spend with an employee on matters unconnected with his specific job, in, say, bolstering up his confidence or smoothing ruffled feathers. Excessively high maintenance employees ("no one can get on with him because he's always whining to the boss", for example) harm other employees' morale, leading to low productivity and high turnover. "...silent, stiff-upper-lipped androgynous *women*" are, of course, low-maintenance. > The word "androgynous" is not particularly precise, > so it seems strange to me that you are treating it > as if it denotes a recognizable group, against > whom discrimination is apparently warranted. It is, I think, one of those usefully imprecise words perfectly suited to defining something that everyone recognizes, but which no one can describe. Procedurally unfair or unlawful discrimination - speaking tautologically - is NEVER warranted; my comments were clearly sympathetic to a group of people who, because of "unfortunate mannerisms", attract discrimination in the workplace. In practice it's very difficult to persuade supervisors NOT to use down-sizing as an excuse for dumping people with "unfortunate mannerisms" or, as I saw last month, a person who leaves footprints on toilet seats(!) AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:06:05 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <19990413104358.16490.qmail@nw175.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:43 AM 4/13/99 -0500, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: >Procedurally unfair or unlawful discrimination - speaking tautologically - is >NEVER warranted; my comments were clearly sympathetic to a group of people >who, because of "unfortunate mannerisms", attract discrimination in the >workplace. In practice it's very difficult to persuade supervisors NOT to use >down-sizing as an excuse for dumping people with "unfortunate mannerisms" or, >as I saw last month, a person who leaves footprints on toilet seats(!) LOL - True - there is no anti-discrimination legislation anywhere that can prevent people from being discriminated against on the grounds of "personality"..or "unfortunate mannerisms", the boss is quite entitled to sack someone because they just don't like them:)) - ..unless the victim can relate their unfortunate hard-to-get-along-with personality traits to their gender, race or religion etc:) Perhaps leaving footprints on the toilet seat can be a 'religious observance'?? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:33:24 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12 Apr 99, at 15:19, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > I don't see it that way at all. > The brain is connected directly to the environment. That's not true - the brain is connected to the environment though the senses and the output of the senses must be interpreted (as your own examples and those in Steven Pinker's _The language instinct_ show) in terms of learned "responses" (or specific brain development). This is not just nit-picking; the brain is readily divorced from its hold on the environment as, for example, in autistic children or catatonics or as in people affected by excess/deficiencies in chemicals (such as thyroid hormones) produced by the body and over which the brain has no control. > For instance, language. In early development, a child goes > through a process of "pruning" neurons. If certain sounds are > heard, they can be heard later in life, If not, then not... You've clearly missed the point by concentrating on small examples. But your arguments on "window(s) of opportunity" are very valid, so let's pursue them a little further. What you're saying that that humans have innate "abilities" to learn certain "things" but that if these "abilities" are not put to work within specific windows of opportunity, the "abilities" will be partially or wholly lost. "Use them or lose them". But the rather simple examples you mention aren't the "abilities" we're concerned with in this discussion. What we're discussing comes down to what Steven Mithen (in _The prehistory of the mind_) regards as our socialization and the intelligences (vide Howard Gardner's _Frames of mind : the theory of multiple intelligences_) which led to it. "Socialization" is also a "window of opportunity ability". This has led Hart (in _Alienated youth_) to the controversial suggestion that "missed window" is an explanation for behavioural disturbances in German youth (and, by extension, in the troubled inner cities of Europe and the Americas). The development of a social context in which food becomes important in negotiating social relationships *between the sexes* was in fact the start of human culture. Indeed Mithen indicates that "females in particular needed to exploit this...in developing their relationships with males". Going on to the development of cultural "sex differentiation", Chris Knight etc (in _Blood relations: menstruation and the origins of culture_) showed that *women* "negotiat[ed] the supply of high quality food" from males by using sexual differences (and the first sexual strikes ;-) ). Let's spell this out: human culture started because *women* emphasised the physiological functions which differentiated them from men. The common factor that runs through all the studies on early culture except the ultra feminist show that sexual differentiation of social roles developed because of the resource-consuming needs of the mother, and her (relatively) big-brained child with its lengthy helpless childhood for a major part of which it's dependent on *mother's* milk. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that early humanity's culture revolved around the pregnant woman and nursing mother - that is, around roles which only women can play. The connection to the topic under discussion is direct; young girls learned from their mothers, and new mothers from their own mothers or other experienced women (the so-called "grandmother" factor). Learning, as in all mammals, took the form of play - in this case, playing with surrogate "babies". The tendencies of which Mike Levy speaks are not ones foisted on women by an oppressive patriarchal society, but which women - our ancestors - developed for themselves. But of course there's a caveat. Not every woman wishes to become a mother. Indeed Simone Wynn (_The mother in early human cultures_), based on research amongst African mothers in war-torn countries, suggests that effective (including non-abusive) motherhood is a "window of opportunity ability". She also suggests (on rather flimsy grounds) that in all societies, a fairly constant 10-12% of women have, for one reason or another, no desire to become mothers and that this is tied to a diminished innate "ability". Your later point about societies with nurturing men is a red herring. There are NO societies in which men have developed breasts for feeding the young. The bearing and feeding of children as roles only women can fulfil is a fact of nature, not the machinations of a patristic, sexist, gendered society. > I think we, in our culture at least, don't like to think > we are connected to the environment or than humanness > is something attained after appropriate development > rather than a simple given. I don't think we like > to think of limits, such as windows of development > that, once missed, are gone forever. And I don't > think we like to imagine that living as strictly > gendered individuals is actually a limited and > possible lesser human state of being. I must be honest and admit that I find this rather a foolish series of statements because it seems profound but on analysis is quite meaningless. And the first and last sentences are contradictory. Gender is established in the womb. Our biological heritage determines our bodies and thus our humanity; we have no choice but to live as strictly gendered individuals. Our "minds" are another matter. What (I think) lies underneath the hyperbole is the belief - which I also hold - that we should not view our social relations in strictly gendered terms *except* where gender is necessarily a factor. To give an example : pregnant women must be barred from certain jobs because of the danger to mother and foetus. Since no man can become pregnant, this is clearly discrimination against women - but on rational, reasonable grounds. > Gender is an iffy thing when you study biology and > botany. Gender in the individual can change by season > or temperature, if one gender is missing or limited, > over time, or randomly. I'm not sure how you arrive at this odd statement. We're not discussing algae and trees or chlids and bacteria. I don't see how sex switching in fish, for example, can have anything to do with humans. And more than that: I don't see how any woman can doubt that gender is a key determining factor on their lives, not through oppressive patriarchal society but as the working of Mother Nature if only because of menstruation. Think about it: menstruation occupies about 13% of our life between 11 and 50. Based on a 40 hour work week, we menstruate for more than half the time we spend working! Not that I'm suggesting that a woman's life should be dominated by her physiology - simply that to talk of strictly genderless societies is pretty nonsensical in the face of the biological differences between men and women. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:39:07 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Info Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain *PLEASE UNSUBCRIBE US FROM YOUR MAILING LIST, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET OFF IT FOR MONTHS* > -----Original Message----- > From: Julieanne [SMTP:jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU] > Sent: 13 April 1999 13:06 > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Raising androgynous children. > > At 06:43 AM 4/13/99 -0500, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > >Procedurally unfair or unlawful discrimination - speaking > tautologically - is > >NEVER warranted; my comments were clearly sympathetic to a group of > people > >who, because of "unfortunate mannerisms", attract discrimination in > the > >workplace. In practice it's very difficult to persuade supervisors > NOT to use > >down-sizing as an excuse for dumping people with "unfortunate > mannerisms" or, > >as I saw last month, a person who leaves footprints on toilet > seats(!) > > LOL - True - there is no anti-discrimination legislation anywhere that > can > prevent people from being discriminated against on the grounds of > "personality"..or "unfortunate mannerisms", the boss is quite entitled > to > sack someone because they just don't like them:)) - > ..unless the victim can relate their unfortunate > hard-to-get-along-with > personality traits to their gender, race or religion etc:) > > Perhaps leaving footprints on the toilet seat can be a 'religious > observance'?? > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:39:20 -0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy Comments: To: Phoebe Wray In-Reply-To: <2d9216d2.24438031@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, I was a little offended by the constant denigration of my profession too. Academics are human beings, too. BTW: I don't think _Jaran_ is mind candy. (no sarcasm intended). ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Phoebe Wray wrote: > I thought Pat Monk's response was a little sarcastic, too... what I was > clumsily trying to say Catherine Asaro said eloquently. > > And now, I hope, this is all cleared up. > > Spiky list, this. > > best wishes, > > phoebe > > Phoebe Wray > zozie@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:07:50 -0400 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: Raising androgynous children. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > "High maintenance" has nothing to do with whether employees are > "swish gay men" (rather homophobic statement). "Maintenance" refers > to time a supervisor must spend with an employee on matters > unconnected with his specific job, in, say, bolstering up his > confidence or smoothing ruffled feathers. Excessively high > maintenance employees ("no one can get on with him because he's > always whining to the boss", for example) harm other employees' > morale, leading to low productivity and high turnover. > > "...silent, stiff-upper-lipped androgynous *women*" are, of course, > low-maintenance. I guess what I don't understand is why you are characterizing "androgynes" as a group with "unfortunate mannerisms". The meaning of the word is vague, but it is clear that it applies to both women and men. If androgynous women of the stiff-upper-lipped variety are not included in the group you are talking about, then why use the term "androgynous"? Why not be more specific and say "emotional men"? And speaking of emotional men... am I to assume that men who engage in emotion of the macho variety are not as problematic as men who engage in emotion of the "feminine" variety? In short, the group that seems to be singled out here is men with effeminate mannerisms. Thus my ironic comment about swish gay men, which was intended as a comment upon the homophobia of the supervisors you mention. I would be very surprised if, in fact, being "high-maintenance" is meaningfully correlated with how much someone defies gender norms. Janice "Androgynous and Proud of It" Dawley -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:36:36 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Sociobiology Again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 at 07:33:24 -0500, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > The development of a social context in which food becomes important > in negotiating social relationships *between the sexes* was in fact > the start of human culture. I have to point out here that this is mere guesswork on the part of the theorists involved. Since a working time machine has yet to be invented, there is no provable hypothesis here, no "fact" that can be ascertained. And it is not only feminists who object to sociobiology (or "evolutionary psychology" as it has been renamed) -- there are quite a few critical thinkers who object on a scientific basis, Stephen Jay Gould being among the most famous. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:52:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <19990413104358.16490.qmail@nw175.netaddress.usa.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > The evidence of Gabrielle Pascal's _Layoffs : a guide to retrenchment > procedures_ (Section 11.9) and my own very extensive observations on the > selection of personnel in "right-sizing/down-sizing" situations. > Is this a book? Where do you get it? > "High maintenance" has nothing to do with whether employees are "swish gay > men" (rather homophobic statement). "Maintenance" refers to time a supervisor > must spend with an employee on matters unconnected with his specific job, in, > say, bolstering up his confidence or smoothing ruffled feathers. Excessively > high maintenance employees ("no one can get on with him because he's always > whining to the boss", for example) harm other employees' morale, leading to > low productivity and high turnover. > > "...silent, stiff-upper-lipped androgynous *women*" are, of course, > low-maintenance. > > > > AJ > Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:51:27 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: <19990413104628.28239.qmail@www0q.netaddress.usa.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > development of cultural "sex differentiation", Chris Knight etc (in _Blood > relations: menstruation and the origins of culture_) showed that *women* > "negotiat[ed] the supply of high quality food" from males by using sexual > differences (and the first sexual strikes ;-) ). Also check out Judy Grahn's BLOOD & ROSES (?) on the same subject. Let's spell this out: human > culture started because *women* emphasised the physiological functions which > differentiated them from men. And in the most patriarchal societies, *men* emphasize the physiological functions which differentiate them from women. Hypothesis: the gender in charge emphasises the factors which differentiate them from those they rule. Today's culture really suits robots best. Q.E.D. - those who don't let their gender, family life, or personalities get in the way are best suited to it - a VERY new development. Though classical bureaucracies in the ancient empires came very close. And many of those were staffed by eunuchs. High-ranking eunuchs were very high maintenance by all reports, but what about the guy with the pen and scroll down in the cubicle somewhere? > The common factor that runs through all the studies on early culture except > the ultra feminist show that sexual differentiation of social roles developed > because of the resource-consuming needs of the mother, and her (relatively) > big-brained child with its lengthy helpless childhood for a major part of > which it's dependent on *mother's* milk. It's only a slight exaggeration to > say that early humanity's culture revolved around the pregnant woman and > nursing mother - that is, around roles which only women can play. > > The connection to the topic under discussion is direct; young girls learned > from their mothers, and new mothers from their own mothers or other > experienced women (the so-called "grandmother" factor). Learning, as in all > mammals, took the form of play - in this case, playing with surrogate > "babies". The tendencies of which Mike Levy speaks are not ones foisted on > women by an oppressive patriarchal society, but which women - our ancestors - > developed for themselves. Yes and agreed. The problem is - and check out Elaine Morgan's DESCENT OF WOMAN on the subject - very soon we got the "lady" who found that these functions interfered with her being neat, clean, pretty, a good housekeeper, etc - and promptly relegated these functions to the servants or slaves. > But of course there's a caveat. Not every woman wishes to become a mother. > Indeed Simone Wynn (_The mother in early human cultures_), based on research > amongst African mothers in war-torn countries, suggests that effective > (including non-abusive) motherhood is a "window of opportunity ability". She > also suggests (on rather flimsy grounds) that in all societies, a fairly > constant 10-12% of women have, for one reason or another, no desire to become > mothers and that this is tied to a diminished innate "ability". In societies with servants, wet-nurses, day care, etc this doesn't stop them from reproducing. And of those with no desire to become mothers, how many of them (is there ANY correlation at all?) have no desire to marry or have to do with men? Celibate sisterhoods and maiden aunts have existed in a fair number of cultures. A recent ANALOG story suggested that their function may be Protector. (And helper. That theory's been around a while. I suggest, rather, that they reproduce *intellectually* and every culture above the ape needs that. Women past menopause do the same thing - carry the culture's wisdom. So do the men, but menopause seems to be uniquely human.) > Your later point about societies with nurturing men is a red herring. There > are NO societies in which men have developed breasts for feeding the young. > > And more than that: I don't see how any woman can doubt that gender is a key > determining factor on their lives, not through oppressive patriarchal society > but as the working of Mother Nature if only because of menstruation. Think > about it: menstruation occupies about 13% of our life between 11 and 50. Based > on a 40 hour work week, we menstruate for more than half the time we spend > working! > Suzette Haden Elgin suggested in her newsletter that the sudden drop in self-esteem among girls may be due to the fact that suddenly they are subject to a process they have no control over, which makes no allowances for their convenience or necessity, and it's going to happen until they're little old ladies with grey hairs! > > AJ > Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:16:09 EDT Reply-To: Tigerm1019@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stephanie R." Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-04-13 08:07:57 EDT, jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU writes: << Perhaps leaving footprints on the toilet seat can be a 'religious observance'?? >> I'm not absolutely certain of this, but I believe Muslims consider it unclean to sit on a toilet seat someone else has used, therefore, the standard procedure is to stand on the seat. It's very possible there are other religions where this is the practice as well. Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:50:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: interview with - Amazon.com Delivers Octavia Butler (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII fyi y'all - note, i still suggest you patronize your local sf / feminist / independent bookstores which are being HARD hit by amazon.com and online vending. when our independent bookstores go away, so do our independent presses, and so does our freedom of expression ... laura q - list-mistress ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:04:48 -0700 From: science-fiction-editor@amazon.com To: science-fiction-subscribers Subject: Amazon.com Delivers Octavia Butler Octavia E. Butler established herself in the SF field beginning in the 1970s with the publication of her Patternist series. As one of the first African American science fiction writers, and indeed one of only a few women breaking the SF gender barrier, she brought a fresh new voice to the genre. Her Earthseed series, which began with "Parable of the Sower" and continues in "Parable of the Talents," tells the story of the genesis of a simple, humanist religion in a dystopian near-future Earth. Butler spoke with us about how the people close to her have influenced her characters. You can find "Parable of the Talents" at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888363819/ref=ad_sf1 and other titles by Octavia Butler at http://www.amazon.com/octavia-butler ****** Real-Life Inspiration: An Excerpt from an Interview with Octavia Butler One of the ways you find to give your characters certain feelings is to examine those feelings in yourself. When I did the story collection "Bloodchild," I remembered a story that I used to tell about a run-in I had with a cop back in Pasadena. It made me feel so humiliated that I was able to use that humiliation for my character when much more terrible things happen to her. It was that feeling of not being in control of what happens to you, and having something happen to you irrationally. You're suspected of doing something that you wouldn't even consider doing. I used my very small experience to expand and get more of the feeling that she would have to go through. I also used one of my early experiences of being carried out of a burning house. My grandmother had a chicken ranch out between Victorville and Barstow in California. Shortly after my father died, my mother left me with my grandmother. One of her brothers had built this house for my grandmother, but he hadn't yet found water on the property. So there was no running water. And there was no phone, of course, and no electricity. So when somebody got careless with a kerosene lantern, or possibly a candle, there was nothing to do but get the heck out and watch it burn, and that's what we did. I certainly used that, the horror of it, not only in "Parable of the Talents," but also in "Parable of the Sower." My grandmother was really a big inspiration for "Parable of the Talents." She was born back in the late 1800s in southern Louisiana, which was not a good place to be black or female, and what's more, her mother died when she was born. She had to be looked after by distant relatives who really didn't want another mouth to feed. They were abusive and beat her--people you'd want to get away from. When she was 12 years old, she met a man who seemed nice. He was in his mid-forties. And they got married. So you can see how my character might consider the possibility. In those days, that could happen--it was even legal. She had nine children, but she lost her husband round about the beginning of the Depression. And she couldn't earn enough money to feed all those children. It was a very scary time--none of the safety nets that we have now. My grandmother had letters from friends who had moved to California, and they wrote, "There's work here!" So she borrowed, and saved, and scrimped, and did everything she could to get herself to California. She had to leave her children with friends and neighbors, and in California she did the only kind of work she knew how to do (and probably the only kind of work she would have been permitted to do)-- housework. She was eventually able to get her children out to California with her and buy a house, and she bought a truck and set up a hauling business. Eventually, she bought the land in the desert, and she began the chicken ranch, where she had several thousand chickens. She did all this with no education, and no real help. But she had her children, for whom she wanted to make better lives, and she had her religion. She would not have approved of my character, by the way, making up a new religion. But she was my main inspiration. Because here was a woman who could bring something from nothing. The full text of Amazon.com's interview with Octavia Butler is at http://www.amazon.com/octavia-butler-interview Featured in this e-mail: "Parable of the Talents" by Octavia Butler http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888363819/ref=ad_sf1 ****** You'll find more great books, articles, excerpts, and interviews in Amazon.com's Science Fiction & Fantasy section at http://www.amazon.com/science-fiction-and-fantasy ****** To become a new Amazon.com Delivers subscriber, or to sign up for additional categories, visit http://www.amazon.com/delivers ****** To unsubscribe from this mailing, please visit your Amazon.com Subscriptions page. http://www.amazon.com/subscriptions Copyright 1999 Amazon.com, Inc. All rights reserved. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:43:20 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Off Topic: NCUR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi 8) I just returned home Monday at 1am from the National Conference of Undergraduate Research being held in Rochester NY this past april 8th-10th, 1999. I had the opportunity to represent the field of Literature by presenting my paper about Empowerment in Octavia Butler's Parable Of The Sower. It was received very well, as there was standing room only in the classroom to hear what I had to say, and the questions afterward reflected some observations about Feminist Science Fiction that compelled me to write this email. My paper was a layered journey of sorts, as when I began this project one of the basic premises that the lay audience would need to know is what is it about Feminist Science Fiction that is so important to this broad field called Literature. I explained how in everyday fiction, the question that gets to be proposed is WHAT IF. From this basic premise, I introduced Science Fiction in general terms, emphasizing that Science Fiction is WHAT COULD HAPPEN, along with the WHAT IF scenario, and I explained the futuristic concepts of utopias and dystopias as well as the trouble with trying to peg Science Fiction into one category because it encompasses so many types of concepts that are not reality based yet are universally true...how differences fuzz over lines of the genres very often and are split into their categories, such as the work of Gabriel Marquez being both realistic fiction, as well as having that quality of unrealness (surrealistic)yet it is still categorized in basic literature to be regular literature (am simplifying this a lot hehe). Then I introduced Feminist Science Fiction, and emphasized that my working definition is one aspect of how the genre is defined, it is not the catch-all definition as many types of realistic modern novels possess. I gave the audience examples of works within the genre, and turned each of the example's basic premise into a WHAT IF question to relate my connections to how this layering of concepts manifests itself. The remainder of the presentation was a basic description of the plot of Parable, and showing the connections between the concept of empowerment through the protagonist's character and making connection between Earthseed with Anna Julia Cooper, a 19th Century African-American suffragette who describes how the parable works, and how I saw Butler using Earthseed in Parable in the same manner through Lauren's character. The question part after the presentation was very good. Many of the younger women attending asked me for sources to look for more books within the genre as they have this hunger to read books with female protagonists who are not stereotypical females. I got one question from an older gentleman who questioned why is Feminist Science Fiction so different, you could just have easily put the role of Lauren into that of a male character and gotten the same results...later many of the female attendees thought he was being rude but I did not perceive this in his tone (of course I was very very nervous I am a very shy individual and standing in front of folks compells me to prevent myself from bolting from the room, which in all the times I have presented I have never done thank goodness laugh)...This man's question gave me a perspective I did not think to check in my research: That male protagonists in Science Fiction seem to be more result-based, than internal-resolved based. Male protagonists are perceived to be the hero, or the anti-hero, there is this layer of something about them that to the reader the expectation to me anyway, is the protagonist will prevail over whatever the situation/crisis is, whereas if the protagonist is female, we perceive her using internal processes to resolve her own conflicts, and we do not focus on the action of the plot's conclusion, but we copncentrate on how the female character changed throughout the story. With female protagonist the reader sees these internal resolutions within the character, this internalness gets externalized in male protagonists because we make assumptions that they are fufilling the hero role, we know he is going to get results, we are into the plot of the action, who is doing what to whom, and it is very exciting like Star Wars. With the female protagonists, we get inside the woman, and see her process these challenges internally, and she is more character based, we want to go along and know what she is thinking as she makes her way through her story, and we feel closer to knowing the character this way as a result. We are satisfied that something has transpired, with the result oriented protagonist, we are satisfied that the story had a fufilling conclusion, the results were right on the money. This is what got me thinking at lunch that same afternoon, love how knowledge works hehe. I have to go to a doctor appt, just wanted to share my experience. And I looked through the abstract catalog, out of 2000 attendees and several hundred literature students, I was the only person representing Feminist Science Fiction there. From the response of many international students, there is a hunger for reading about female protagonists in this genre. Jo Ann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:20:50 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: more on kids and science / BEAUTY MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julieanne: Thanks for sharing your information, personal and not. My stepdaughter has many traits from me, which show up strongly when we are associating with my family. And I love my son and try to raise him in a non-stertypical manner, but that doesn't keep him from coming home and informing me I can only like the pink and yellow Power Rangers because they are the grrls. :{ RE: the various scientific references being cited about brains and development and such. Does anyone else have a difficult time distinguishing scientific fact from scientific facts with an agenda these days? johanna: It's been a while since I read BEAUTY, but I know there were changes between the UK edition and the US advanced edition and the US final edition. I think one editor took out Carbonne's comments, so it's not just your memory which is making your rereading different. Pax, Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:44:13 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Comments: To: "Stephanie R." In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Stephanie R. wrote: > I'm not absolutely certain of this, but I believe Muslims consider it unclean > to sit on a toilet seat someone else has used, therefore, the standard > procedure is to stand on the seat. Does this fall under the category of a self-fulfilling prophecy or what? Sorry--couldn't help it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:02:55 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >*PLEASE UNSUBCRIBE US FROM YOUR MAILING LIST, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET >OFF IT FOR MONTHS* This must be because you have lost or mislaid the instructions sent out when you were subscribed to the list explaining how to unsubscribe or suspend mail. This is not done done by mailing the actual list, but the listserv which houses it listserv@listserv.uic.edu with the message SIGNOFF FEMINISTSF Information which I believe has been posted several times in response to similar cries over past months Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:02:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: origins of the term "speculative fiction" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Would anyone, per chance, know where the term, "speculative fiction" came from? I'm using it in my dissertation prospectus and would like a more specific sense of its genealogy than I presently have. Thanks, Erik Erik Tsao Graduate Student/T.A. Dept. of English 51 W. Warren Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202 "In a revolution, when the ceaseless slow accumulation of centuries bursts into volcanic eruption, the meteoric flares and flights above are a meaningless chaos and lend themselves to infinite caprice and romanticism unless the observer sees them always as projections of the subsoil from which they came."--C. L. R. James ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:48:53 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Question regarding equity vs equal right feminism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can anyone tell me what the difference is between equity vs equal right feminism? A student in a class I am taking asked me, and I am embarassed to say I have no idea. She's doing a paper on _Woman on the Edge of Time_. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:27:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: origins of the term "speculative fiction" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FA2084FDD7B14742B99C5E07" --------------FA2084FDD7B14742B99C5E07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe Robert A. Heinlein is credited with first using the term, in an essay in the 1940s. He used it to embrace science fiction and fantasy (and maybe utopia). The term metamorphosed in the 1960s to distinguish the "New Wave" as it distanced itself from "science" fiction. Robert Scholes gave it another turn in his book Speculative Fabulation. Erik Tsao wrote: > Would anyone, per chance, know where the term, "speculative fiction" came > from? I'm using it in my dissertation prospectus and would like a more > specific sense of its genealogy than I presently have. > > Thanks, > > Erik > > Erik Tsao > Graduate Student/T.A. > Dept. of English > 51 W. Warren > Wayne State University > Detroit, MI 48202 > > "In a revolution, when the ceaseless slow accumulation of centuries bursts > into volcanic eruption, the meteoric flares and flights above are a > meaningless chaos and lend themselves to infinite caprice and romanticism > unless the observer sees them always as projections of the subsoil from > which they came."--C. L. R. James --------------FA2084FDD7B14742B99C5E07 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe Robert A. Heinlein is credited with first using the term, in an essay in the 1940s.  He used it to embrace science fiction and fantasy (and maybe utopia).  The term metamorphosed in the 1960s to distinguish the "New Wave" as it distanced itself from "science" fiction.  Robert Scholes gave it another turn in his book Speculative Fabulation.

Erik Tsao wrote:

Would anyone, per chance, know where the term, "speculative fiction" came
from?  I'm using it in my dissertation prospectus and would like a more
specific sense of its genealogy than I presently have.

Thanks,

Erik

Erik Tsao
Graduate Student/T.A.
Dept. of English
51 W. Warren
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202

"In a revolution, when the ceaseless slow accumulation of centuries bursts
into volcanic eruption, the meteoric flares and flights above are a
meaningless chaos and lend themselves to infinite caprice and romanticism
unless the observer sees them always as projections of the subsoil from
which they came."--C. L. R. James

--------------FA2084FDD7B14742B99C5E07-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:45:56 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Question regarding equity vs equal right feminism In-Reply-To: <199904131845.LAA01568@mail.sdsu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Sophia Hegner wrote: > Can anyone tell me what the difference is between equity vs equal right > feminism? A student in a class I am taking asked me, and I am embarassed to > say I have no idea. She's doing a paper on _Woman on the Edge of Time_. > Equal rights feminism says both men and women have the right to military service and maternity leave. Equity feminism - if I understand it - aims at fair treatment for all, not necessarily equal. Analogy: giving one child a football and another a doll may be equity (depends on the kid!) but it isn't "equal rights."> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:08:07 -0500 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: Sociobiology Again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 13 Apr 99, at 10:36, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > I have to point out here that this is mere guesswork > on the part of the theorists involved... The "guesswork" is true of course to the extent that almost any theory in what we might call "behavioural palaeontology" is guesswork - whether the theory deals with trilobites, the dinosaurs or early man. But the "mere" is another matter. In view of the very small number of human remains that we have, it's hardly surprising we know so little. Although we've got an infinitely larger number of dinosaur remains, we can't be even *sure* whether the dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. > And it is not only feminists who object to > sociobiology (or "evolutionary psychology" > as it has been renamed) Evidently Knight and some of his associates are very much persona grata in some feminist circles. The theory for which they are most famous is actually tailor-made for feminists of a certain type. Evidently they theorise that women used the sexual strike ("no food, no ....") and "sham menstruation" (I kid you not) using red ochre to mimic the real thing! I'm not sure how (although I've read the book which isn't clear), but the theory actually strengthens the idea that "early culture was matriarchal and matrilineal" and is thus politically highly acceptable. > there are quite a few critical thinkers who object on a scientific > basis, Stephen Jay Gould being among the most famous. Is Gould a scientist? Would real scientists accept his Marxism-oriented approach to science? Note that I didn't say "Marxist approach" in the sense that Terry Eagleton uses. My own comments on "sociobiology" (and on the soft sciences generally) are well-known and too offensive to some people on this list to bear repeating. But that said, evolutionary psychology has moved a long way from Wilson - almost to the borders of respectability. Much as I hate to say it, the comments by Madrone on brain development show that we are beginning the long road of finding out how the brain works by seeing how small skills involving one or a few body parts affect brain development. Unfortunately most of our social "mechanisms" are immensely complex matters, affecting not one or a few but many parts of the brain. Analysing even the simplest cognitive problems is still impossible. *Exactly* how do we compare two masses by "weighing" them in our hands; it's something we all do instinctively, but no one has the least idea of how we do it in our "wetware" let alone how we have developed the "mindware" to solve such general problems. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:50:31 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 12 Apr 99, at 13:14, Dave Samuelson wrote: > Do you mean Eagleburger or Eagleton? D*** it, that's embarrassing! To mistake the egregious Eagleburger for the cultured Eagleton! There's no excuse: in front of me as I write is his quote on "readers" from _Against the grain_. I keep it in view whilst writing book reviews. > I'm amazed to hear about the automatic respect > given the liberal arts. Where I live and work, > we have to fight for every inch of respect.... You've missed what I said. I said "liberal arts" NOT "liberal artists" (or would that be "liberal artistes"?). Joking aside, scientists etc do tend to respect the great works of literature much as Jennifer spoke about Plato's _The republic_. I suspect this is because they know nothing about them. I know a geochemist who always cites St Augustine's _The city of God_ as the perfect model for a truly just and liberal society. I know, though, that he's never read past "The glorious city of God is my theme in this work, which you, dearest Marcellinus suggested, and which is due to you by my promise"! Of course many of the older works inspire respect by their content. Every time I read Agricola's _De re metallica_, I'm struck by how modern his work seems. Respect, however, doesn't carry over to the practitioners. It's mostly for the reasons you point out but also because of the excesses of some workers. Making "much ado about nothing" seems to be the raison d'etre of too many literary theorists. You're probably right about the greater respect for the arts in Britain but for the wrong reasons. In the past and now, few non-arts students did/do courses in literature. Respect and ignorance are thus both the greater. As you've certainly know, I myself have never done a formal course in modern *English* literature. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:02:53 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: Question regarding equity vs equal right feminism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks! Forwarding this on to my friend. :) At 03:45 PM 4/10/99 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Sophia Hegner wrote: > >> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between equity vs equal right >> feminism? A student in a class I am taking asked me, and I am embarassed to >> say I have no idea. She's doing a paper on _Woman on the Edge of Time_. >> > Equal rights feminism says both men and women have the right to >military service and maternity leave. Equity feminism - if I understand >it - aims at fair treatment for all, not necessarily equal. Analogy: >giving one child a football and another a doll may be equity (depends on >the kid!) but it isn't "equal rights."> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:11:25 -0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: origins of the term "speculative fiction" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The term was used by Robert A. Heinlein in "On the Writing of Speculative Fiction" in _Of Worlds Beyond_ edited by Lloyd Arthur Eshbach (Chicago: Advent Press, 1964; rp. 1970). This edition of the book is a reprint of the Fantasy Press limited edition of 1947. I don't know if he was the first person to use the term; this is just the earliest use I have come across within the field. ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Erik Tsao wrote: > Would anyone, per chance, know where the term, "speculative fiction" came > from? I'm using it in my dissertation prospectus and would like a more > specific sense of its genealogy than I presently have. > > Thanks, > > Erik > > Erik Tsao > Graduate Student/T.A. > Dept. of English > 51 W. Warren > Wayne State University > Detroit, MI 48202 > > "In a revolution, when the ceaseless slow accumulation of centuries bursts > into volcanic eruption, the meteoric flares and flights above are a > meaningless chaos and lend themselves to infinite caprice and romanticism > unless the observer sees them always as projections of the subsoil from > which they came."--C. L. R. James > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:35:35 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: forward from Todd Mason MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------21693B7E27E4" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------21693B7E27E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit forwarded by me -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** --------------21693B7E27E4 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: (from daemon@localhost) by knight.axnet.net (8.8.5/1.4/8.7.3/1.1) id QAA01509 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904132307.QAA01509@knight.axnet.net> Received: from corppo1.uvsg.com(192.40.65.90) via SMTP by knight, id smtpdAAAFPfij_; Tue Apr 13 16:07:20 1999 Received: from prevuepo1.prevuenet.com (prevuepo1.uvsg.com [192.40.65.44]) by corppo1.uvsg.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id H4MAV0J4; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:08:04 -0500 Received: by prevuepo1.uvsg.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:11:04 -0500 From: Todd Mason To: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Could you forward this to FEMinist SF? It won't recognize me at t his address, and I won't be able to access my other tonight...thanks Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:03:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 33148c8e4f33deae3daa310130243b69 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 From: Todd Mason on 04/13/99 06:18 PM To: FEMINISTSF @ LISTSERV.UIC.EDU at ccinter @ ccmail cc: =20 Subject: Two hours available tomorrow for web-audio and Philadelphia-area listeners RADIO TIMES with Marty Moss-Coane 10AM-NOON Hour One: Tune in for a program that promises to cast a spell on you.=20 Author Helen Berger joins some real life witches to talk about her new book =93A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and = Witchcraft in the United States.=94 Hour Two: 1999 marks the 150th anniversary of the death of Edgar Allan Poe. In this edition of Artscape we'll commemorate his life and his legacy. Our guests are Poe scholar Daniel Hoffman, one of America's = past poet laureates and Edgar Allen Poe National Site ranger Helen = McKenna-Uff. Call the studio at (215) 923-2774 to participate in the discussion. (repeated at midnight) --And audible at www.whyy.org --------------21693B7E27E4-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:07:03 -0700 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: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: > Respect, however, doesn't carry over to the practitioners. It's mostly for > the reasons you point out but also because of the excesses of some workers. > Making "much ado about nothing" seems to be the raison d'etre of too many > literary theorists. My readings tell me that some "crickets" (Joyce Cary's term in The Horse's Mouth) have tried to emulate real scientists by adopting (pseudo-) scientific rigor. I prefer one of the upshots of structuralism and poststructuralism: the idea that everything is text. This makes me potentially "expert" in the "textual expression" of all fields. It also makes me wary of pontification since I can be sure of nothing. One of my watchwords is a quote (or misquote) of Bertrand Russell: "When all of the experts are agreed, you can not be sure that the opposite opinion is correct; when the experts disagree, you can not be sure that any opinion is correct." > You're probably right about the greater respect for the arts in Britain but > for the wrong reasons. In the past and now, few non-arts students did/do > courses in literature. Respect and ignorance are thus both the greater. As > you've certainly know, I myself have never done a formal course in modern > *English* literature. I would have no way of knowing that. I teach modern literature and critical theory as well as science fiction and fantasy and read accessible science books on a regular basis. Most science students here tend to avoid literature courses. They are required to take one course in the arts; two courses out of three disciplines in the humanities (literature, philosophy, and foreign languages); and one more from any of the above. Literature students are just as wary of the sciences, but they have to take two laboratory science courses (one physical, one biological), one in math, and a fourth from either science or math. Ignorance here seems to bread contempt rather than respect. > > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:31:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Sociobiology Again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <....In view of the very small number of human remains that we have, it's hardly surprising we know so little. Although we've got an infinitely larger number of dinosaur remains, we can't be even *sure* whether the dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded.> I am _greatly comforted_ that we know so little. Especially if what is done with any new information will be akin to what has been done with "scientific fact" for ages. Not to this feminist. < The theory for which they are most famous is actually tailor-made for feminists of a certain type. Evidently they theorise that women used the sexual strike ("no food, no ....") and "sham menstruation" (I kid you not) using red ochre to mimic the real thing! I'm not sure how (although I've read the book which isn't clear), but the theory actually strengthens the idea that "early culture was matriarchal and matrilineal" and is thus politically highly acceptable.> Again I state that this feminist at least is not in search of evidence nor theory that explains how women were once "on top". To have to use a "sexual strike" is not a desirous scenario to me. Just more of the same - competition, "war-gaming", resource restriction, etc. Mirror reversing patriarchy is not the be all and end all for all feminists. I dont know Eagleton, and dont need to, to be able to ask does being a Marxist or using a "Marxist-oriented approach" make one an untrustworthy unreliable scientist? So does the same hold true for an anarchist or a feminist or a nationalist or a fascist? Do they make questionable scientists as well? <....Unfortunately most of our social "mechanisms" are immensely complex matters, affecting not one or a few but many parts of the brain. Analysing even the simplest cognitive problems is still impossible....> So how can anyone say anyone else is right or wrong about this information when "analysing even the simplest cognitive problems is still impossible". I guess I am really tired of folks posting messages that draw "who is right" and "who is wrong" lines amidst or against anyones personal opinions. Which is all any of us have to say here. One persons opinion. Whether it is couched in those terms or not. This is not a professional scholars or scientists list. We are not being paid to be accurate or correct here. This is supposedly a place of pleasurable engagement. No need for refuting or denying someone's statements. No need for opinions and suppositions being denied or skewered. No need for dozens of textual references. The rest of us are smart enough to do our own research. Just simply state your own opinion. And dare to be heard as you are. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:36:31 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Upon reflection in the cathedral MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Still. One does wonder, doesn't one? Particularly here, I think, near the cathedral forests that spring up out of basalt and granite and the remnant gravels of glaciers...one wonders how, in a world where cooperation, species-interaction with mutualism, affection, and diversity bordering upon the extreme...how is it that some human beings are so defective as to exploit others, harm others physically or psychologically, waste life, and/or translate a life in which there really are blue butterflies into...well, into a sixty hour or more job where one had damn well better not have "unfortunate mannerisms". I do argue small points: perhaps it is the Italian in me, and my mother's having made certain I learned about the mosaics of her country (and how mosaics of parties always had a death's head, to remind of the brevity of life). We can do PET scans. The brains of children who have been globally neglected show little activity in areas where language ability sits. And where emotion and sound are interpreted there is...as a researcher commented...a black hole. Silence. Absence of electrical activity. There is an area to the front of your brain, just above your eyes...the orbitofrontal area, which is responsible for regulating "...the intensity, frequency, and duration of primitive negative states such as rage, terror, and shame". This area develops very early on, and in traumatized or neglected children, does not develop...you can imagine the result. It can even be damaged in adults...soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, when PET scanned, show no activity in this area. Hence, the periods of terror. Children in a war zone are PTSD, too. This is a touchy, and perhaps, frightening area to study. One does not want to catagorize children as no-brainers and warehouse them somewhere. But the realities of brain development...the sculpting of the anatomy of the brain and the cells themselves...is a tool, a way of taking our lives and our futures back, and a way of understanding the futility of violence and the grinding way it repeats from one generation to the next. It is also a way, I think, of understanding what it means to be human, what humanness might, someday, be. It also allows us to ask, what difference is there, if any, in the brain of a child who is never spoken to, versus one who is always told "don't cry', or "be a man", or "don't back down", or "Little boys (girls) don't play with dolls (chemistry sets)?" Gender has its reflections in the anatomy of the brain...but these differences themselves depend upon the environment. And if definitions of gender are different across cultures...what of the orbitofrontal region? And if fish change gender, and children in the womb are affected by different sex siblings, and at least 2% of humanity is biologically androgyne, and the vast majority of life on this planet alternates between diploid and haploid generations... And does one REALLY have to have breasts to be nurturant? Madrone, writing from the temperate rainforest. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:36:15 -0500 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: Sociobiology Again In-Reply-To: <19990413215212.16385.qmail@.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > > Is Gould a scientist? Would real scientists accept his Marxism-oriented > approach to science? Note that I didn't say "Marxist approach" in the sense > that Terry Eagleton uses. > This seems like a very strange statement to me. Is Stephen J. Gould a scientist? Well he has a Ph.D. in a recognized scientific field from a major university. He's been employed as a working scientist by a number of major scientific institutions for virtually his entire adult life. He's written a number of serious scholarly works in his field and is one of the originators of a major scientific theory which is widely debated by other experts, some of whom agree with him and some of whom disagree, but all of whom (so far as I can tell) take him and his work seriously. One hardly needs to mention that he's also written a host of highly praised, award-winning works of popular science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has duck DNA... The fact that he may or may not be a Marxist, or may or may not have a "Marxism-oriented" attitude (whatever that is) in his approach to life or science isn't particularly relevant. Many scientists have strong political views covering the entire spectrum from right to left. Sometimes those views may influence their work, but that in and of itself doesn't invalidate that work if their theories match the observable data. Do your obviously strong political views invalidate your work? I hope not. I don't think mine do. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:40:12 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 13 Apr 99, at 12:44, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Does this fall under the category of a self-fulfilling prophecy or what? We're all laughing about it now, but let me tell you it was a real pain in the butt for plant management. When told about it, Mike [Stanton], who can be a real bog-trotting peasant at times, burst out laughing and was instantly railed at by two furious women. Since the "mysterious footprint affair" had occurred nearly 4 months earlier, the anger it aroused went pretty deep. Evidently shortly after some immigrants joined the staff, mysterious footprints began appearing on seats in the women's toilets. At first no one knew who it was and everyone rushed about the place blaming each other for playing jokes. After sleuthing worthy of Sherlock Holmes, the offender was traced and found to be a Gujerati-speaking Pakistani woman. Reasoning with the woman through a bad interpreter didn't work. Finally the VP i/c production phoned the PAK consulate to get a decent interpreter. This guy explained the problem to the immigrant and she agreed to wipe the seat after use. Unfortunately, this made matters worse because she refused to do it UNLESS the other women wiped up any pubic hairs they shed as well (evidently some Pakistani women shave or depilate or whatever and find pubic hair offensive). The resolution of the matter satisfied no one and, when we got there after the news of layoffs, guess who headed the list for getting the chop. Mike hadn't made matters any easier and it took half-an-hour of his most oleaginous charm and outrageous Irish brogue to get the two supervisors smiling. The worst thing was that, for the next few days, I had to endure his smirks every time I went to the bathroom! AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:36:55 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 13 Apr 99, at 17:07, Dave Samuelson wrote: > I prefer one of the upshots of structuralism and > poststructuralism: the idea that everything is text. This makes > me potentially "expert" in the "textual expression" of all fields. > It also makes me wary of pontification since I can be sure of > nothing. During my first year at University, I audited a course in Old Testament exegesis in which this approach (referred to - I think - as "French structuralism") was raised. Until then I'd been convinced that "text" could never be separated from "context". Curiously it was this course and the "text"/"context" relationship that gave me my current interest in CATA (computer-aided text analysis). > Most science students here tend to avoid literature courses. They > are required to take one course in the arts ... [snip] Some very useful information here. Could you perhaps put it into context by telling me how many courses in total students have to take? I'd like to make an estimate of the relative importance of the "arts" in the students' total work load. I misled you slightly when I said I'd never done a course in literature. Anthea reminded me that in our first year we were initially obliged to do a course in English comprehension and simple literature. Intended for Third World people speaking English as a second language, all science students were required to do it, not because it was useful but "as a gesture of solidarity". Two weeks into the course this gesture, foisted on us by the leftist Student's Union, sparked "riots" which gave me a taste of what Berkeley must have been like in the 60s. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:01:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike and Anthea: In the U.S., at most universities, most bachelor's degrees require about 120-130 credit hours. One course is usually worth 3 credit hours, unless it is a lab science course, which might be 4 or even 5 credit hours. I have also taken language courses which were worth more than 3 credit hours. The idea is that if your class meets for one hour, three times per week, then it is worth 3 hours. Now: the general education requirements vary from school to school, but at mine, a liberal arts student had to have 12 credits of science (I picked geology and biology in order to avoid physics and chemistry), with at least 8 credits being lab courses. That makes, what, about 10% of total college hours? The students who major in business or the sciences have to take the basic English composition classes, which as a teacher of such classes I can assure you they need, (this means two semesters, or 6 credit hours), and during which they stand a reasonable chance of being exposed to a smidge of literature or philosophy here and there. After that they have to have about the same exposure to the humanities that liberal arts students must have of the sciences. So again, probably about 10% of their total coursework. Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy >On 13 Apr 99, at 17:07, Dave Samuelson wrote: > >> I prefer one of the upshots of structuralism and >> poststructuralism: the idea that everything is text. This makes >> me potentially "expert" in the "textual expression" of all fields. >> It also makes me wary of pontification since I can be sure of >> nothing. > >During my first year at University, I audited a course in Old Testament >exegesis in which this approach (referred to - I think - as "French >structuralism") was raised. Until then I'd been convinced that "text" could >never be separated from "context". Curiously it was this course and the >"text"/"context" relationship that gave me my current interest in CATA >(computer-aided text analysis). > >> Most science students here tend to avoid literature courses. They >> are required to take one course in the arts ... [snip] > >Some very useful information here. Could you perhaps put it into context by >telling me how many courses in total students have to take? I'd like to >make an estimate of the relative importance of the "arts" in the students' >total work load. > >I misled you slightly when I said I'd never done a course in literature. >Anthea reminded me that in our first year we were initially obliged to do a >course in English comprehension and simple literature. Intended for Third >World people speaking English as a second language, all science students >were required to do it, not because it was useful but "as a gesture of >solidarity". Two weeks into the course this gesture, foisted on us by the >leftist Student's Union, sparked "riots" which gave me a taste of what >Berkeley must have been like in the 60s. > > >Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:21:25 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Upon reflection in the cathedral Comments: To: "Demetria M. Shew" In-Reply-To: <8ced8fbc.24454b1f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > There is an area to the front of your brain, just above your eyes...the > orbitofrontal area, which is responsible for regulating "...the intensity, > frequency, and duration of primitive negative states such as rage, terror, > and shame". This area develops very early on, and in traumatized or > neglected children, does not develop...you can imagine the result. It can > even be damaged in adults...soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, > when PET scanned, show no activity in this area. Hence, the periods of > terror. Children in a war zone are PTSD, too. > > This is a touchy, and perhaps, frightening area to study. One does not want > to catagorize children as no-brainers and warehouse them somewhere. But the > realities of brain development...the sculpting of the anatomy of the brain > and the cells themselves...is a tool, a way of taking our lives and our > futures back, and a way of understanding the futility of violence and the > grinding way it repeats from one generation to the next. > What we need to study is how children grew to be adults in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, and Renaissance - and created (in part) the culture we know today DESPITE being surrounded by violence and death. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:03:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:04 AM 4/04/99 EST, you wrote: Oh, God, are we _still_ arguing on this damn topic? I sent the email you're responding to now weeks ago. Can't you just let it go? >That is exactly correct. I am telling you that, I do get angry. I do want >to change things. But, no, Santanico. I do not want to kill anyone. I am >reminded of a Muslim woman whose son was killed in one of their conflicts. >She said that her son was angry, and when men get angry they kill. Then she >said something interesting: "I get angry, too. But it doesn't make me >kill." There is a big gulf indeed between those who kill, and those who >solve. By the way, in case I haven't mentioned it on this list, I am a >little over six feet tall and, yes, I can use a gun. A shotgun, because my >eyesight isn't so good. I can, but I don't. Madrone, forgive me, but are you this literal-minded all the time? Or did you just not notice the quotation marks around "wanted to kill them"? What I was attempting to say, which was totally misinterpreted, was that the _potential_ for mindless violence exists within everyone. I wasn't saying that anger is legitimate excuse for murder! Or when someone says to you, "God, I wanna kill that guy!", do you actually take them seriously? >Now, Sant. I am talking about ability to form attachments, see others as >alive, feel empathy. Find creative solutions to problems. All the mentally >handicapped people I know can do that just fine (hence my statement in the >last post about intelligence not being essential to humanness) and illness is >transitory (one hopes).. But usually isn't. Most people with serious illnesses stay that way for life. I'm referring to schizophrenia and manic-depression, specifically. Sad but true. And you didn't mention a word of this "ability to form attachments" stuff in your first email. You said that humanity is defined by the brain basically being in perfect working order. Which, in the case of the mentally handicapped, it ain't. >Yup. Not yet, anyway. Therefore, people who leave their spouses or partners, don't call when they say they will, neglect appointments, or basically just upset anyone else in any way, aren't human. Any more than someone who can't quite get calculus >will be awarded a Ph.D. in Mathematics. And as for psychoanalysts >(sp?)...what we really need is a people culture, where the development of the >embryo, and of children, has real importance. Aha. So psychoanalysis is just another symptom of a heartless, soulless partiarchal culture, whereas if society were run entirely by women, everyone would be happy and nobody would ever be neurotic and desperate and need someone objective to talk to, because, gosh darn it, we women are perfect and anyone who disagrees is a brainwashed patriarchal Stepford. Where the experience of life >is as valued as the experience of going to work and making a profit for the >company. And as for female 'circumcision'...if you feel this is the activity >of healthy, human, lively culture then, hey, go for it. Just remember, they >don't use anesthesia. As for me, I think it is inhuman, cruel, >unhealthy...and smacks of the old, "We can't interfere with what they do with >their women" perspective. Unfortunately, we can't, any more than they can storm our culture and force us to adhere to their way of life. I'm certainly not condoning the act, as you seem to think I am, but the fact is, you can't do anything about it without forcing people of a different culture to adhere to our moralities and our practices, which, simply, don't work for every culture. Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if aliens with practices we didn't like landed on the Earth... >Um. Unless I disrecall, if they breastfeed for longer than you think OK, you >want them sent to the loony bin. And I seem to recall that in some places, >it IS illegal to breastfeed in public... Okay, when did I say _that_ exactly? Unless I've had a severe memory lapse in the last few weeks, I never said that women who breastfed until their kid hit puberty (or something like that) belonged in a looney bin. But for Christ's sake - what is so WRONG with weaning a child? Why is it considered so apparently anti-mother, anti-woman, anti-feminist, etc, etc, to suggest that maybe, just maybe, a line should be drawn somewhere? How is this even a feminist subject, really? >This is interesting, because, clearly, my point of view is quite new to >you...perhaps unbelievably so, and that is what I have always felt SF was >for...to help us see, and believe, other perspectives and points of view. >Even those as alien to you as my own. Yeah, yeah. And God bless us, every one. Jeez, where do you get off being so sanctimonious? It's not as if _you're_ giving much credence to _my_ point of view, is it? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:06:28 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Romantic vs. Hard SF -- Komarr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Hi, I just happened to be reading Bujold's latest Miles Vorkosigan book, _Komarr_ and I thought it fit really well into our recent discussion of romantic sf vs hard sf. For those who haven't read it, it involves Miles being sent to the colony world of Komarr to investigate the partial destruction of a solar mirror that is very important to the ecology of that planet. The main characters are Miles and Ekaterin, the wife of an important local official. There is quite a bit there about Ekaterin's unhappy marriage and Miles dealing with his medical problems. I was reading along, enjoying myself, when, somewhere around page 100 or so, Miles gets into a detailed discussion of the investigation of an accident in space, and what makes this accident unusual... And I found myself saying "aaah!" the real skiffy stuff at last. Of course, this bit only lasts a page or two, then it's back to psychological stuff again. I could imagine a version of Komarr which was hard sf: the psychological stuff and interplay between Miles and Ekaterin would be downplayed greatly, and a lot more of the book would be taken up by the mechanics of the accident investigation, with lots of little bits of tech (how salvage tugs work, how computer reconstruction works, etc.) I really think you could have the same characters, same basic plot, just a lot less characterization and a lot more fascination with technology. I think the brilliant old engineer character, Uncle Vorthys, would also play a much bigger role as the Wise Old Head of the story. I also had this thought about male vs. female responses to fiction: I think a lot of women like to escape from their own lives for a little while by being drawn in to the well-written personal life of someone else, such as Ekaterin or Miles; I think a lot of men would prefer to escape the realm of the personal and domestic almost entirely -- hence the cartoonish nature of a lot of hard sf characters. Bujold does a great job of balancing the two elements to create a well-rounded book that I think has appeal for both types of readers. Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:33:37 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Romantic SF vs. Hard SF -- the case of Komarr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Hi, I just happened to be reading Bujold's latest Miles Vorkosigan book, _Komarr_ and I thought it fit really well into our recent discussion of romantic sf vs hard sf. For those who haven't read it, it involves Miles being sent to the colony world of Komarr to investigate the partial destruction of a solar mirror that is very important to the ecology of that planet. The main characters are Miles and Ekaterin, the wife of an important local official. There is quite a bit there about Ekaterin's unhappy marriage and Miles dealing with his medical problems. I was reading along, enjoying myself, when, somewhere around page 100 or so, Miles gets into a detailed discussion of the investigation of an accident in space, and what makes this accident unusual... And I found myself saying "aaah!" the real skiffy stuff at last. Of course, this bit only lasts a page or two, then it's back to psychological stuff again. I could imagine a version of Komarr which was hard sf: the psychological stuff and interplay between Miles and Ekaterin would be downplayed greatly, and a lot more of the book would be taken up by the mechanics of the accident investigation, with lots of little bits of tech (how salvage tugs work, how computer reconstruction works, etc.) I really think you could have the same characters, same basic plot, just a lot less characterization and a lot more fascination with technology. I think the brilliant old engineer character, Uncle Vorthys, would also play a much bigger role as the Wise Old Head of the story. I also had this thought about male vs. female responses to fiction: I think a lot of women like to escape from their own lives for a little while by being drawn in to the well-written personal life of someone else, such as Ekaterin or Miles; I think a lot of men would prefer to escape the realm of the personal and domestic almost entirely -- hence the cartoonish nature of a lot of hard sf characters. Any comments about this gross generalization? I think part of the secret of Bujold's success is her skill in balancing the narrative elements to appeal to both groups. Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:33:45 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "hey pixie, pixie" Subject: Re: BEAUTY Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain >It's been a while since I read BEAUTY, but I know there were changes >between the UK edition and the US advanced edition and the US final >edition. I think one editor took out Carbonne's comments, so it's not >just your memory which is making your rereading different. maryelizabeth: thanks for the info! good to know my brain wasn't totally fried... how odd that they would make such major changes between editions (the parenthetical remarks are quite large in parts). & annoying--i'm glad i read the brit edition first b/c i feel like carabosse's remarks give away too much sometimes. trying to skip over them, but i just can't make myself skip anything in this story. does anyone know if it's common to make such large changes between editions published in the US & the UK or elsewhere? johanna _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:52:37 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:43:59 -0500 From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. [snip] >The evidence of Gabrielle Pascal's _Layoffs : a guide to retrenchment >procedures_ (Section 11.9) and my own very extensive observations on >the selection of personnel in "right-sizing/down-sizing" situations. Sounds like an interesting book. I suspect that part of the reason your posts get so much response is that a lot of listmembers identify more with employees than with management. It has also struck me that your business seems recruit people who are at one edge of the big bell curve (the highly ambitious/workaholic edge). >"High maintenance" has nothing to do with whether employees are >"swish gay men" (rather homophobic statement). "Maintenance" refers >to time a supervisor must spend with an employee on matters >unconnected with his specific job, in, say, bolstering up his >confidence or smoothing ruffled feathers. Excessively high >maintenance employees ("no one can get on with him because he's >always whining to the boss", for example) harm other employees' >morale, leading to low productivity and high turnover. And do you see a very clear connection between androgyny and this type of dysfunctional employee? I've known some guys who were very flamboyant ("swish" sounds insulting to me) , but also very good at their jobs, and who probably brought their personal lives into the office *less* than average. This topic hits a nerve for me: I find myself really missing androgynes, drag queens, flamboyant guys, etc. etc. since I moved to a fairly small town in Eastern Kansas. People stay in their gender roles around here or get the hell out, I guess. Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:30:13 -0700 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: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: > >On 13 Apr 99, at 17:07, Dave Samuelson wrote: I prefer one of the upshots > of structuralism and >poststructuralism: the idea that everything is text. > This makes me potentially "expert" in the "textual expression" >of all > fields. It also makes me wary of pontification since I can be sure of > nothing. > During my first year at University, I audited a course in Old Testament > exegesis in which this approach (referred to - I think - as "French > structuralism") was raised. Until then I'd been convinced that "text" could > never be separated from "context". Curiously it was this course and the > "text"/"context" relationship that gave me my current interest in CATA > (computer-aided text analysis). I can't separate text from context, many of them (actual, not just potential). Multi-dimensional, communication is inseparable from sender, audience, the "real" world, and a number of "codes" in which it is expressed. SF and fantasy, as mentioned by many posters on this list, involve some codes specific to them, some to literary expression in general, some just to communication. >> Most science students here tend to avoid literature courses. They are required to take one course in the arts ... [snip] > Some very useful information here. Could you perhaps put it into context by > telling me how many courses in total students have to take? I'd like to make > an estimate of the relative importance of the "arts" in the students' total > work load. American universities break up curriculum into "Carnegie units," which allow transfer of credits among them. Such a unit stands for one hour in class and two hours homework in order for an average student to earn a "C" grade (average grades today are closer to B or B- than C; the calculation ignores how professors differ in terms of difficulty: workload and grading standards). A B.A. at my school requires 124 units, of which 3 must be in the arts (art, music, dance, theatre arts--typically "appreciation" courses) and an additional 3 can satisfy the General Education requirement for the Humanities category. > I misled you slightly when I said I'd never done a course in literature. > Anthea reminded me that in our first year we were initially obliged to do a > course in English comprehension and simple literature. Intended for Third > World people speaking English as a second language, all science students were > required to do it, not because it was useful but "as a gesture of > solidarity". Two weeks into the course this gesture, foisted on us by the > leftist Student's Union, sparked "riots" which gave me a taste of what > Berkeley must have been like in the 60s. Science students are generally left alone to choose within the 51-unit General Education requirement. Engineering faculty generally overmanage their students' schedules, rather than giving them that freedom. Our urban campus has about 30,000 students and 1500 faculty, divided into seven "colleges." The division is about even between Arts, Natural Sciences, and Liberal Arts (Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences) on the one hand, and professional schools (Business, Education, Engineering, Health and Human Services) on the other. > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:28:08 -0700 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: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: > Mike and Anthea: > > In the U.S., at most universities, most bachelor's degrees require about > 120-130 credit hours. One course is usually worth 3 credit hours, unless it > is a lab science course, which might be 4 or even 5 credit hours. I have > also taken language courses which were worth more than 3 credit hours. The > idea is that if your class meets for one hour, three times per week, then it > is worth 3 hours. > > Now: the general education requirements vary from school to school, but at > mine, a liberal arts student had to have 12 credits of science (I picked > geology and biology in order to avoid physics and chemistry), with at least > 8 credits being lab courses. That makes, what, about 10% of total college > hours? The students who major in business or the sciences have to take the > basic English composition classes, which as a teacher of such classes I can > assure you they need, (this means two semesters, or 6 credit hours), and > during which they stand a reasonable chance of being exposed to a smidge of > literature or philosophy here and there. After that they have to have about > the same exposure to the humanities that liberal arts students must have of > the sciences. So again, probably about 10% of their total coursework. > > Sheryl Sheryl's comments apply here as well. A B.A. normally requires 124 units (the new system Chancellor wants to reduce it to 120; the extra 4 were originally for physical education, no longer required). A B.S. can take up to 134 units (Music, Engineering). We also grant Master's degrees and a few doctorates, only in combination with a doctorate-granting institution. Everyone must take or exempt one course in English composition (fully 1/3 of our entering first-year students need a remedial course to qualify for it), one course in public speaking, and one course in critical thinking, before embarking on the rest of their G.E. "exploration," divided equally into humanities, natural science, and social and behavioral science. American high schools are not highly regarded in terms of university preparation; Southern California schools have more non-English-speaking immigrants than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. have settled here and the schools still haven't figured out how to get them all up to speed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:13:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: How grandmothers created civilization Anthea said >>The common factor that runs through all the studies on early culture except the ultra feminist show that sexual differentiation of social roles developed because of the resource-consuming needs of the mother, and her (relatively) big-brained child with its lengthy helpless childhood for a major part of which it's dependent on *mother's* milk. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that early humanity's culture revolved around the pregnant woman and nursing mother - that is, around roles which only women can play.<< Here's another view to your prostitute idea, though shoot, it does come from a feminist, so you wouldn't give it much credence. Natalie Angier in Woman An Intimate Geography says that we Crones are the authors of civilization. She says there was an old "Grandmother hypothesis" that was kind of thrown out in the 80's; but more recent research on a tribe named the Hadza by Kristin Hawkes of the University of Utah has resurrected a new and better understanding of the benefit of menopause and the contribution of older women to human society. Most primates breastfeed their young for a long period of time, chimpanzees 4-5 years, but once weaned, the youngsters must find their own food. Breastfeeding takes a nutritional toll of approximately 600 calories a day on mothers, so they can't afford to supply both their adolescent offspring and their nurslings. A mother or other adult will occasionally offer a bit of difficult to acquire food to a juvenile, but this is more in the way of a treat than a routine nutritional supplement. Because of the handicap of inexperienced young food gatherers, most primates must restrict their range of living to areas where food is relatively easy to obtain. "If the troop decided to migrate to an area where food was scarce and required adult skills to extract, the younger animals would soon die of malnourishment." However if adults could find a way to provide food for the younger primates, the families could enlarge their living territory. Breastfeeding and pregnant mothers couldn't be the food source, but if females live beyond their childbearing years, they could be used to share food with the younger ones. Most animals are fertile for their entire life span. But if there is a supply of menopausal women who don't need to rely on extra calories to nourish their own pregnancies, they can be used to feed the youngsters. "Now, with Grandma's help, early humans are free. They can go where other primates, and possibly competing hominids, cannot. They can invade adults-only habitats, where they must dig to unearth tubers and cook many food items to make them edible." Another thing happens as the territory expands and older females are more able to feed youngsters, mothers find they no longer have to nurse 4-5 years, they may safely wean their youngsters earlier knowing there will be someone else to provide nutrition for them. Intervals between pregnancies can be briefer. Angier says that among more primitive people with no access to artificial baby formula, the duration of breastfeeding is usually about 2.8 years rather than the 4 to 5 years for chimps. Mothers can use those extra, non breastfeeding years getting pregnant and having more offspring. Greater territories, larger families. Grandma is doing a good job. A 50 year old, fertile chimp is a decrepit animal, but a menopausal human of the same age is relatively healthy. Why would that be? "The chance arises for the occasional robust older female to make a difference to her family's welfare." Angier says. "An aging chimpanzee has nothing to do in a society where the young are autonomous, so she might as well die...By contrast, in a setting where provisioning weaned children is essential, Grandmother too becomes essential. The stalwart older female succeeds in keeping her kin alive. The moribund older female does not. Selection favors robustness after menopause, and the human lifespan begins exceeding the primate norm..." "As Grandmother grows stronger, children get weaker. It is a developmental rule of thumb that the greater an animal's lifespan, the later the onset of its sexual maturation; if a body is to endure, it must be built with care. Hence the genetic changes that foster life past menopause end up keeping children small and prepubescent comparatively longer...The lengthening of childhood opens a window of opportunity for cerebral experimentation. The brain has time to ripen, its synapses to lace and interdigitate...For the first two or three years of life, a human child is not that different from a chimpanzee. Both creatures are astonishingly clever and curious...But within short order the chimpanzee must drop out of school and work for a living, whereas the child...remains in most cultures in the luxury of the nanny state. The child has all those postmammary years when she is still getting fed and thus can devote her energies to her intellectual and social education. In fact, she is well advised to do so, because even as extended dependency offers opportunity, it poses risks. The young chimpanzee can feed itself. The child cannot. An adult, unlike a fig tree, is not particularly responsive to being shaken or plucked, but instead must be ever so subtly fleeced. That means the child must learn the trade of enchantment: the strategic smile, the well-timed whimper, the feckless eye-bat." "With Grandma in stride and children in tow, no land was too bleak, no tuber too deep, to dampen humanity's imperial zeal. The more hostile the terrain, the greater the dependency of child on elder. Peter Pan set down roots. Childhood expanded. And with world enough and time, the conditions converged for another revolutionary expansion -- of intelligence. Our minds hurtled outward in all directions. We became absurdly creative, homo artifactus, intolerant of bare cave walls, and naked clay pots...The earth that we were fast overrunning was no longer enough, and we laid claim to the heavens, peopling the terrible, silent dome above us with an exuberant divinarium of advisers, legislators, coaches, and entertainers. We lived so long and so self consciously that we assumed we must live forever..." Oh, by the way, regarding the family's reliance on the male to provide quality food, Angier states: "Where ...are the men in this picture? Why are they not providing for their wives and children? They hunt, and the meat they bring back serves as a meaningful source of calories for the whole group. But hunting is an irregular enterprise and often unsuccessful; you can't count on it for your daily bread. By rights hunter-gatherers should be called gatherer-hunters. In addition, when Hadza men make a killing, they can't help themselves; they show off. They're big men, and big men share. They share with allies they're seeking to woo or enemies they want to appease. They share with girls they're trying to impress and children who throng to the carcass. In the end, very little of the meat finds its way to the mouths of the hunters family." So Crones created human beings in all our intellectual and spiritual complexity. Men, I guess were the prototype politicians. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:47:39 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran as mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patricia Monk > Well, I was a little offended by the constant denigration of my profession > too. Academics are human beings, too. I've run into some uncomfortable situations, not here, but in other places, where some folks made hurtful assumptions about my personality because I was a physics professor. The combination of scientist+academic evokes its own stereotypes. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:21:20 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 14 Apr 99, at 7:52, Daniel Krashin wrote: > Sounds like an interesting book. I suspect that part of the reason > your posts get so much response is that a lot of listmembers > identify more with employees than with management. It has also > struck me that your business seems recruit people who are at one > edge of the big bell curve (the highly ambitious/workaholic edge). Gaby Pascal's book is required reading in my company. It's oldish (3rd edition is '91). A typical French book (but well translated by Jeanne Antrobus), meticulously written, logical, and a first class do-it-yourself guide. Strongly recommended for European analysts. Although I shouldn't have thought it, perhaps I'm just older at nearly 32 than most people on the list and thus have advanced further in my career. On average US/English graduates with good, *commercially useful* degrees are in middle management by their mid-20s, senior management by 30-35 and executive management by 40-45. However our business differs from the average because *all* professionals are under high pressure and spend much of their time travelling. It's highly professional, intellectually challenging but often personally unpleasant. My people have to work very hard, get a lot more responsibility very early in their career, travel extensively and work on their own or in small tightly-integrated teams with little or no supervision. So they advance more quickly and are better paid than average - but they earn it through long, arduous working hours and, in the first 10 years, a non-existant homelife and a fragmentary social one. But people who work, save and have a bit of luck can accumulate capital rapidly ... and then throw it away starting their own company just as we've done! I know plenty of people in the US - and there are probably many on this list - who work and save the same way in all sorts of industries with the same goal - to become their own bosses. > And do you see a very clear connection between androgyny and this > type of dysfunctional employee? I've known some guys who were > very flamboyant ("swish" sounds insulting to me) , but also very > good at their jobs, and who probably brought their personal lives > into the office *less* than average. Yes in that androgynous men _sensu stricto_ seem to be dysfunctional in this way proportionately more often than the "macho" type. But I don't think "androgyny" = "flamboyance" = "dysfunction" = "incompetence". I too know highly competent flamboyant men - there's one working for a firm in Albany (NY) that I'd kill to be able to hire. More than that, I'd give him all my own earrings (to wear all at once if he liked)! I think I may have got somewhat off-track earlier on the meaning of "androgynous" and restricted it too much to an androgynous person with a certain type of personality which was both wrong and misleading. > This topic hits a nerve for me: I find myself really missing > androgynes, drag queens, flamboyant guys, etc. etc. since I > moved to a fairly small town in Eastern Kansas. People stay in > their gender roles around here or get the hell out, I guess. I'm in a REALLY conservative industry - no one would trust sensitive matters like down-sizing to a flamboyant person because, rightly or wrongly, "flamboyance" = "casualness" = "disrespect". But sometimes I'd love a bit of colour (literally and figuratively) in the office. More than that, I'd love to dress that way myself on occasion. When I unpacked on Monday, I realised my most flamboyant garment was my wetsuit which is black with neon-bright pink panels. Perhaps now that we're settled in Italy I can get a social life that doesn't revolve around business. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:24:14 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Off Topic: NCUR You go, Jo Ann. You know what Garrison Keillor says on Prairie Home Companion: Powder-milk biscuits, they give shy persons they strength they need to do what needs be done. You must have been eatin' your biscuits. By the way, for those who missed the joke show this past week-end, you can hear parts of it over real-audio at http://phc.mpr.org/performances/19990410/index.shtml Unfortunately, Paula Poundstone's monologue isn't included, but the opening volley is hilarious. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:38:48 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Prairie Home Companion Joke Show oops, I was wrong, the whole show is there, I just didn't look far enough. Paula's there and so is Brain Surgery. Too funny. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:45:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Annalise Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <199904141403.JAA21540@piglet.cc.uic.edu> from "Santanico" at Apr 14, 99 09:03:59 am Content-Type: text > > At 01:04 AM 4/04/99 EST, you wrote: > > Oh, God, are we _still_ arguing on this damn topic? I sent the email you're > responding to now weeks ago. Can't you just let it go? look at the date it was sent. there was lag. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:24:57 -0700 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: Raising androgynous children In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Apr 99 15:21:20 CDT." <19990414194814.23923.qmail@www0g.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Although I shouldn't have thought it, perhaps I'm just older at nearly 32 than >most people on the list and thus have advanced further in my career. On >average US/English graduates with good, *commercially useful* degrees are in >middle management by their mid-20s, senior management by 30-35 and executive >management by 40-45. Actually, this assumption is a major source of conflict in my field (engineering): many people don't want to go into management, but don't have a viable promotion ladder without it. I, for instance, *really* don't want to become a manager. I like to Build Stuff (TM). But I've already had well-meaning people suggest that I do X or Y so that I'll be prepped to move into management. Usually I get a sort of mulish look and say: I'm not a manager. I build things. But that's often seen as lower status, as lacking in initiative, no matter the true skills of the person involved. (And we're not talking "a brilliant and kind-hearted person"; in one case I know of the person had invented and helped develop *the* most visible and successful product in many years.) Which reminds me of a question I've been asking people lately: what are some good works of science fiction (or whatever!) that posits and develops a significantly different economic/corporate model than any existing or known about? An minor example would be Bruce Sterling's _Holy Fire_, in which people use cash and "real money", where "real money" cannot be moved quickly, but only in terms of many years. And maybe you have to be above a certain age to own it? Another example might be the "corporate city" model, which I've always imagined as somewhat of a regression to a feudal society; although to my disappointment most of them end up more like a capitalist society in which your corporation is the same as your government. Any great examples? Really radically different takes on the whole thing? jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:50:32 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The following 3 points are often overlooked or ignored in discussions about gender, including this one: 1. Environment doesn't mean parents. 2. Biological difference doesn't mean sex difference. 3. Androgynous doesn't mean neuter, it means the opposite of neuter. Children are vastly different; what works well with one child may not work, or even be disastrous, with another child. Children are just as individually unique as adults are. There is a certain self-directed resistance in children; parents cannot make the child into anything they want, some things just go agaist the grain of the child. This resistance against parental influence does not necessarily prove a biological or inborn tendency. The environmentalist alternative explanation is peer influence -- the idea that peers means more, and parents mean less, than commonly assumed. In other words, a lack of parental influence does not prove a correspondingly bigger biological or inborn tendency. The arguments for this case are presented in, e.g., Judith Rich Harris (1998): The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. This book is reviewed and commented at Amazon.com, and it is also a bestseller, so it should be easily available. The above is not an argument against "biological individualism". People are indeed so different, even biologically, that averages may be very misleading and unhelpful. A New Scientist article, 14 Nov 1998, "Tailor Made Personal Drugs to Suit Your Genes", pp.32-36, illustrates this point. What is good and healthy for one person may be unhealthy or even poison for another. Preferences in food and drinking no doubt have a significant biological component. Other preferences and values may as well. But sociobiologists and social conservatives seem to have misunderstood what conclusions may be drawn from this. The conclusion is not one about averages, uniformity and biology as destiny. On the contrary, the conclusion is one about customization, individuality, and one's unique identity as destiny. Now, observe two things. # 1 The bulk of human "biological individualism" is NOT related to sex. Most biological differences between people are not related to reproduction. # 2 Emphasizing "group differences" (real or imaginary) always imply deemphasizing, reducing, marginalizing and denying individual differences. In other words: when someone is making an argument that biology is important, that it is the most important factor, that environmental influences are small compared to biological factors, etc., they are not making an argument for biological or inherent sex roles. They may believe they are making such an argument, but if so, they are wrong. Even if we accept this argument, putting the peer influence issue on hold for a while, we see that because of observation # 1 above, this argument does not justify sex roles. This is just a lack of a connection, a missing link in the chain of reasoning. But if we consider observation # 2, we see that "biological individualism" is in fact OPPOSED to the enforcement of sex roles. "Biological individualism" implies that people are all different, AS INDIVIDUALS, and since these differences are inherent(*), they are hard to change -- and why should they be changed anyway? While sex roles are based on group identity and collectivism, and on a belief that all men are fundamentally the same and all women are fundamentally the same, and the "opposite" of the men. (*) Of course, these individual differences would be just as real and inherent/incorporated in the individual if they were the result of early choices or early environmental influences. So, neither biology, nor the social sciences and environmentalist theories about humans, support gender collectivist ideas about sex roles. These ideas are ideological, not scientific. The sex role comprachicos don't have a scientific leg to stand on. While we are talking about biology, I just have to mention the article, "Natural Born Fathers", in New Scientist 12 December 1998, pp. 38-41. This article documents and describes hormonal changes in the "pregnant father", that is, the soon-to-be father living with his pregnant female mate. I just love biological research which is not Patriarchally Correct, don't you too? In addition to the peer influence issue indicated earlier above, there is one more thing about environmentalist influences: namely, epigenetic inheritance. This is inheritance that determines when and how often genes are "turned on" or activated. While the transmission of the genes themselves to offspring is a strictly biological (genetical) process, epigenetic inheritance is not. That is, environmental factors determine when and how often genes are activated. This comes dangerously close to Lamarckian selection and heredity, and indeed some of the people researching this phenomenon provocatively refer to themselves as "neo-Lamarckians". See the article "Hidden Inheritance" in New Scientist 28 November 1998, pp. 26-30. This one is online: http://www.newscientist.com/ns/981128/epig.html Sociobiologists and social conservatives ALWAYS confuse androgyny and being neutered (is this confusion environmental or is it an inborn brain defect, I wonder?). Masculinity and femininity are not two antagonistic points of polar opposition. They are not even far ends on a gradual scale. They constitute two separate scales, two independent dimensions. Thus, in addition to being high on one of the scales and low on the other, it is also possible to be high on both scales - to be both masculine and feminine at the same time, which is known as psychological androgyny. Finally, one can be low on both scales, and this is known as undifferentiated, which means psychologically neutered. (As to what these scales consist of, see my next posting about "The Bem file"). In other words, androgynous and neuter are opposites. Androgynous people -- people who combine masculine and feminine characteristics -- are whole, complete humans. Traditionally masculine men and feminine women are people who neglect one half of their humanity. They are incomplete; psychologically, they are cleaved half-humans. Thus, masculine men and feminine women are closer to neuter than the androgynes are. Those who are traditionally gendered may be seen as semi-neutered, so to speak. One of the most prevalent and pernicious mistakes in Western Culture is the idea that there exist two separate and "opposite" genders, masculinity and femininity. This gender dualism is not only false, lacking factual or scientific support, but also very harmful. In order to see through and overcome this falsehood one may employ the androgyny model with its two scales, as outlined above. The model shows that the various components of masculinity and femininity may be combined in any number of ways, according individual differences, preferences, traits and needs, leading to and illustrating an enormous amount of diversity and individual variation. (See also my article "Vive Les Differences!" in The Association of Libertarian Feminists Newsletter # 66 (1998), available at http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/gnd/vive-alf.html). So, again: 1. Environment doesn't mean parents. 2. Biological difference doesn't mean sex difference. 3. Androgynous doesn't mean neuter, it means the opposite of neuter. If people can keep these three simple facts in their mind, a lot of made up problems immediately disappear. But so does the false appearance that sociobiologists and social conservatives can lay claim to science in support of their ideology. Therefore, they want you to forget or be unaware of these three simple truths. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "Women's liberation is the liberation of the feminine in the man and the masculine in the woman." -- Corita Kent "The male warrior's quest for enlightenment -- his climb from "Gawain-ness" to "Arthurhood" -- is, from one perspective, a search for the antidote to the masculine, material civilization he has inherited and defends. When the ancient Greeks exiled the Great Mother from their mainstream religion, they threw out not just the baby with the bathwater, but their own feminine side as well. Men have been looking for it ever since." -- Richard J. Lane & Jay Wurts: _In Search of the Woman Warrior_, p. 241. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:04:26 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re Raising androgynous children MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People who are different in anyway many times lose jobs because of ignorance, hatred or phobia on the part of both fellow employees and supervisors/managers NOT because they are innately "higher maintenance". People not of the ruling class or race many times will be perceived as "higher maintenance" by the ruling class or race because of ignorance, hatred or phobia on the part of the ruling class or race. The story of the footprints on the toilet seat illustrates both of these points beautifully. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:07:24 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: The Bem File (Re: Raising androgynous children.) In-Reply-To: Anthea Hartley Stanton 's message of Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:09:58 -0500 On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > To me, "androgynous" has always meant "hermaphrodite", That's what the term meant when it was invented, a long time ago. The last 30 years or so, at least since the publication of Carolyn Heilbrun's famous defense of psychological androgyny, it has meant something else. Since psychologist Sandra Bem's research from the 70s, the (human, psychological) meaning of androgyny has become quite clear. So here is "The Bem File", a compilation and overview of her work. There is also a very funny story about child raising, so don't miss it... --------start-of-Bem-file Below you will find the most recent version of the Bem file. This file contains the following: --info about the Bems' whereabouts --anecdote about androgynous upbringing (don't miss this) --references to some of their recent works --description of Sandra Bem's Cornell course on sex roles --description of Sandra Bem's newest book --the Bem Sex Role Inventory The various bits have been collected from various newsgroups, lists, and from personal correspondence. - Thomas Gramstad ------------------------------------------------------------ From: nelson@berlioz.nsc.com (Taed Nelson) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: The BEM Test Date: 6 Jan 1993 03:35:53 GMT [This is based on an email discussion between Lenore Levine and myself.] > On the back of scratch paper from a campus recycling area, > I found a psychological test called the Bem Sex Role > Inventory. This test lists sixty adjectives that refer to > human beings, some "masculine," some "feminine," and some > neutral... I am reasonably familiar with this "test", having taken a class from Sandy Bem (Psychology of Sex Roles) and another from her husband, Daryl Bem (Personality Psych). I assure you that neither person is "politically incorrect" in the way one might suspect from the original posting. Sandy Bem was the person who first did the excellent experiment showing that at 2 months old (a point where babies don't do much, much less show social differentiation based on gender), it is the parents and other adults that force the sex roles upon them. They are even going so far as to raise their children androgynously (which lead to a lot of good stories due to interaction with other people -- I had one of them on rec.humor.funny a few years ago, and I reproduce it below). The basis of the "test", if I recall, was based on perception of a number of people (ie, the first set of subjects would match each trait with Feminine, Masculine, Neither, or Both), and then the most discriminating characteristics were placed on the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Thus, the "test" measures how YOU feel you conform to what SOCIETY feels about each sex role. Her perceptions don't enter into the test at any point. I still have the paper on it, so I could send it to you if you're interested... > By the way, I wonder if they're aware how Anglo-Saxon > oriented this test is? Just about everything done in the United States is "Anglo-Saxon oriented". Her original sample to get the discriminating traits was probably about 200 students in one of her psychology classes -- thus, it would also be biased toward rich, educated, white, young Californians -- since I think she did that study at Stanford (she's now at Cornell). There's a saying in the field -- "Psychology is the study of undergraduate college students." This occurs since that sample is _so easy_ to get (due to the professors teaching the classes are able to essentially require the students to be subjects). If anyone is really interested, I could send you the paper -- just send me your work address. But now for the story... --- This was told to me by both Sandy and Darryl Bem, both of whom are Psychology Professors at Cornell University. The Bems, being well-versed in the area of sex roles and psychology, had decided to raise their children androgynously. This included not only the typical male-toy/female-toy aspects, but they were also very careful not to impose any of their own learned sex role socialization upon their children. For example, a frequent phrase was "the only difference between a male and female is that a male has a penis and a female has a vagina." When the parents were asked whether a person that the child could see was male or female, they would reply (even if the parents could tell which it was), "I don't know, dear, they have pants on, so we can't see if they are male or female." One day, their son (then in Kindergarten) decided that he wanted to wear hair barrettes to school. Sandy and Darryl, of course, acquiesced and put barrettes in his hair. That night, they got a phone call from his teacher (who knew about the Bems' rearing plan), who related the following story: Upon arriving at school, another boy came up to their son and asked why he was wearing barrettes in his hair. Little Bem replied, "Because I felt like it." The other boy was visibly upset at this, but walked away. A little while later, the boy comes back and says, "Why are you wearing barrettes in your hair? Only _girls_ wear barrettes; you must be a girl." Bem, true to his upbringing, replies, "I am not a girl; I have a penis and testicles, girls have a vagina." The boy once again walks away. During recess, the boy comes back once again, and _insists_ that Bem is a girl because he is wearing barrettes. Once again, "The only difference between boys and girls is that boys have a penis and testicles and girls have a vagina." The little boy exclaims, "You _must_ be a girl; you're wearing barrettes." But Bem replies, "I'm a boy; I have a penis and testicles. Look -- I'll show you!" At this point, the young Bem pulls down his pants to prove that he has a penis and testicles... The boy replies, "Everybody has one of those, but only girls wear barrettes." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nelson@berlioz.nsc.com (Taed Nelson) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: The BEM Test (BSRI) Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:55:42 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley As promised, I've looked up the references for the BSRI (Bem Sex Role Inventory). Probably the most informative one is: Sandra L. Bem, "Androgyny and Gender Schema Theory...", 1984 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by Teho B. Sonderegger. I suspect that this will be hard to get for most people, so I can copy it for anyone who wants it. It's a good paper. This paper focuses on Gender Schema theory (a subset of general Schema Theory, but most of the soc.feminism readers probably aren't familiar with that) and how the BSRI helps to gain evidence for it. Gender Schema theory says that we all have this built-in "schema" (look it up) for our adopted sex role, and that we perceive the world through it. One of the more interesting experiments is where people who are sex-typed on the BSRI (they are either masculine or feminine) react to sex-typed adjectives flashed on a screen faster than non-sex-typed adjectives. Non-sex-typed people (neuter) show no such difference. That is to say that a sex-typed reacts to the word "emotional" faster than they would to the word "thrifty" (I made up these examples). Some easier-to-get papers would be: Bem, SL, "The Measurement of psychological androgyny", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Bem, SL, "The theory and measurement of androgyny", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047-1054. Bem, SL, "The BSRI and Gender Schema Theory", Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. [There are actually 2 BSRI papers in this issue.] In addition, while on my Bem crusade, I would highly recommend the following two papers: Bem, SL, "Genital Knowledge and Gender Constancy", -- Oh no, this one is unpublished to my knowledge, but I got my copy of it about 5 or 6 years ago -- does anyone have the reference? I'll make copies for anyone interested. Basically, it shows that children (2-4 years old) who know about male and female genitals can "conserve" the sex of a picture -- even if the hair, clothes, etc, change. Children without this knowledge use these clues to determine the sex of a child -- if a boy puts on a dress, then "magically" that person is now a girl. Bem, Daryl J., "A Consumer's Guide to Dual-Career Marriages", ILR Report, Fall 1987. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Gramstad Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: The Bem test Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:20:47 GMT Basically the Bem Sex Role Inventory illustrates that gender ('psychological sex', biologically determined) is an arbitrary cultural invention. I'll append the Bem Sex Role Inventory at the end of this message. It has been posted on the net before. I can dig up Bem's original article and post the reference if noone else does it. Today Sandra Bem is at Cornell University. She teaches this course: Psych 277 Psychology of Sex Roles (Also Women's Studies 277) Spring -- 3 credits -- Limited to 300 students Here's a description of the course: This course addresses the very broad question of how an individual's gender and sexuality are constructed. Although some attention is given to biological perspectives, the course emphasizes the social-psychological processes by which the culture transforms male and female newborns into "masculine" and "feminine" adults. In addition to being quite interdiscplinary, the course is also oriented to questioning the "naturalness" of not only masculinity and femininity themselves, but exclusive heterosexuality as well. Among some of the specialized topics discussed are psychological androgyny, equalitarian relationships, gender-liberated child rearing, the male-centeredness of the work world, female sexuality, sexual harassment, and homophobia. ------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 00:42:13 -0400 From: jmd9@cornell.edu (Jamey Dumas) Subject: Bem's new book TITLE: The lenses of gender : transforming the debate on sexual inequality / Sandra Lipsitz Bem. AUTHOR: Bem, Sandra L. PUBLISHED: New Haven : Yale University Press, c1993. SUBJECTS: Sex role. Sex differences (Psychology) Sexism. Equality. Gender identity. DESCRIPTION: xii, 244 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. I read it for an "intro social psych" class that her husband (Daryl Bem) taught. I think that it is an excellent book, especially for introducing college age students to the idea of gender discrimination. The book is titled _The Lenses of Gender_. She essentially argues that there are three (?) societal norms that function at a very basic and pervasive level to create gender discrimination. (These norms are part of the value system common to most people in U.S./western society, which we do not think about or realize that they exist because they are so basic to the way that our culture socializes us.) For example, she titles one of these lenses "androcentrism" which is the focus on "male" traits as normal and "female" traits as other (marked/unmarked, etc.) She goes on to argue that "the lens of androcentrism" is one of the fundamental reasons that male-female differences become male advantage/female disadvantage. For example, insurance policies end up being designed from a male perspective of what is "necessary medicine" (i.e. predominantly male cancers, but not pregnancies); or, legal theories like self-defense are derived from a male experience. (One of the reasons that I think the book is excellent is that, besides providing compelling support and well thought out arguments for her points, she also provides excellent examples which, I think, are really eye opening for people who are somewhat skeptical of the argument that she is advancing.) The other lenses that she talks about are "biological essentialism" and "gender polarization." She also expands her discussion beyond sex based discriminaton to gender based discrimination, including such topics as discrimination based on sexual orientation. --Jamey --------------------- (From Peter Sellmer:) THE BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY The BSRI is the product of Sandra Lipsitz Bem, who has been interested in researching sex roles since the early '70's. (For a recent paper published by her, see (Bem, 1985)). At the time she started, it was seen as a flaky topic, but today it is taken a lot more seriously. While this retransmission may qualify as a copyright violation, (though it might not, under Canadian copyright laws), I have only the deepest respect for Dr. Bem and the work she is doing, and I reproduce this only because I think she would like more people to think about how sex roles affect them personally, and this is a good tool for doing just that. I don't intend to hurt anybody, and I've seen the BSRI published in enough places (or parts thereof) that I'm certain she has a "take it and use it" attitude. If Dr. Bem is out there in net.land (or anyone around her), please tell me if I've missed the mark. -- Peter Sellmer ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions: On the next screen, you will see a list of personality characteristics. What you do is rate how much these apply to you on a 7 point scale. Generally speaking, first impressions are the most accurate for things like these, so shoot from the hip! An example of the scoring: sly score 1 if you are NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER sly score 2 if you are USUALLY NOT sly score 3 if you are SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY sly score 4 if you are OCCASIONALLY sly score 5 if you are OFTEN sly score 6 if you are USUALLY sly score 7 if you are ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS sly Just out of curiosity, rate each item as to how applicable it is to a really desirable MOTAS (we're talking SO grade with NO hesitation) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Usually Sometimes Occasionally Often Usually Always True Not True True True True True True self-reliant reliable warm yielding analytical solemn helpful sympathetic willing to take a stand defends own beliefs jealous tender cheerful has leadership abilities friendly moody sensitive to other's needs aggressive independent truthful gullible shy willing to take risks inefficient conscientious understanding acts as a leader athletic secretive childlike affectionate makes decisions easily adaptable theatrical compassionate individualistic assertive sincere doesn't use profanity flatterable self-sufficient unsystematic happy eager to soothe hurt feelings competitive strong personality conceited loves children loyal dominant tactful unpredictable soft-spoken ambitious forceful likable gentle feminine masculine conventional This post is still huge, but the midterm (Psych Research Methods) went OK. I think there are some useful (as in real-life practical) reasons for doing this quiz, so I'll post part 2 a little later. I have some notions about the way the scores will tend to fall out, so I'd be very interested in people mailing me theirs and good SO material's. I'll summarize and post, of course, without naming names. -- Peter Sellmer (peter@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca or psellmer@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) -------------------------------------------------------- SCORING: Here is the same list of attributes, except each has an indicator (m/f/n) beside it: self-reliant -m reliable -n warm -f yielding -f analytical -m solemn -n helpful -n sympathetic -f willing to take -m defends own beliefs -m jealous -n tender -f cheerful -f has leadership abilities -m friendly -n moody -n sensitive to other's needs -f aggressive -m independent -m truthful -n gullible -f shy -f willing to take risks -m inefficient -n conscientious -n understanding -f acts as a leader -m athletic -m secretive -n childlike -f affectionate -f makes decisions easily -m adaptable -n theatrical -n compassionate -f individualistic -m assertive -m sincere -n doesn't use profanity -f flatterable -f self-sufficient -m unsystematic -n happy -n eager to soothe hurt -f competitive -m strong personality -m conceited -n loves children -f loyal -f dominant -m tactful -n unpredictable -n soft-spoken -f ambitious -m forceful -m likable -n gentle -f feminine -f masculine -m conventional -n Now, the thing to note about the above scheme is that they were all selected by a large (N ~ 1500) sample of college students to be more desirable for the sex listed. That is, this measures how much they line up with our sex role ideas. The actual score is calculated by averaging the scores for male and female attributes, respectively. This gives a male score and a female score. Subtract the male score from the female score to get the androgyny score. The androgyny score can range from -6 (extremely masculine) to +6 (extremely feminine). Watch the sign on this one! :-) Most people tend to score -1 <= AS <= +1, for which a detailed scheme is: +1 < AS : Feminine +0.5 < AS < +1 : near-feminine -0.5 < AS < +0.5 : androgynous -0.5 > AS > -1 : near-masculine -1 < AS : Masculine Discussion, or That's nice, but what does it mean? Well, the whole thing tries to get a handle on how close we fit to common sex-role perceptions, while circumventing the idea that somehow men and women are "opposite" sexes. ( I dunno, I think we ought to call them dual sexes or something like that ). Anyway, the whole thing runs on how we consider some behaviors as more fitting for one sex or another. There are some interesting stats from groups tested by Dr. Bem: Males (N=444) Females (N=279) %feminine 5% 29% %near-feminine 5% 18% %androgynous 44% 39% %near-masculine 16% 8% %masculine 30% 7% Two things strike me about these numbers: 1) the curves are pretty much the same for both sexes, and 2) the sex-role label only sticks to about half the people! In psych terms, this labelling of behaviors by gender just doesn't cut it as far as construct validity goes. With about half the population supporting these notions, it's pretty clear why they are so resistant to change. They sort-of work about half the time, and we use stereotypes (which are cognitive rules-of-thumb / default settings) all the time. We cannot eliminate stereotyping as a cognitive process, but we sure as hell can edit the contents of our stereotypes! I want to get some feedback from some net.folk before I talk about my hunches on what the scores out there are like. References: if you see a citation, and want to check out the original, just quote me the citation (Foobar, 197x), and I'll e-mail you the reference. -- Peter Sellmer (peter@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca or psellmer@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) --------end-of-Bem-file Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "To the earliest Western societies, a warrior was: * One who toils or fights. * One who embroils in confusion. * One who guards or defends. * One who chooses or wills. * One who speaks out. * One who becomes. * One who accomplishes through effort. * One who is aware. "What strikes us immediately from this list, is that the warrior function is, and always has been, gender neutral. Anthropologist Carlos Castaneda reports that Don Juan, a Yaqui wise man, described the warrior FUNCTION not in gender terms, but as a certain mind set. A warrior, he says, ''...takes everything as a challenge" while an ordinary person "...takes everything as a blessing or a curse.'' "The ability to view yourself as the captain of your soul, as a person willing to face and resolve any conflict--and, as a woman, to refuse to see yourself as a victim of man-made or biological circumstances--separates you as a warrior from those "ordinary" people, male OR female, who are willing to drift with the current and bend with every breeze." -- Richard J. Lane & Jay Wurts: _In Search of the Woman Warrior_, pp. 15-16. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:22:35 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Corporate models (Re: Raising androgynous children) In-Reply-To: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah 's message of Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:24:57 -0700 Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Which reminds me of a question I've been asking people lately: > what are some good works of science fiction (or whatever!) that > posits and develops a significantly different economic/corporate > model than any existing or known about? An minor example would > be Bruce Sterling's _Holy Fire_, in which people use cash and > "real money", where "real money" cannot be moved quickly, but > only in terms of many years. And maybe you have to be above a > certain age to own it? Another example might be the "corporate > city" model, which I've always imagined as somewhat of a > regression to a feudal society; although to my disappointment > most of them end up more like a capitalist society in which your > corporation is the same as your government. Any great examples? > Really radically different takes on the whole thing? Not great or radically different perhaps, but still kind of interesting, Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_, where the main characters work in a corporation that has "economic democracy", that is, the corporation is run more like a democratic, political institution. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "Women's liberation is the liberation of the feminine in the man and the masculine in the woman." -- Corita Kent "I'm ON it!" -- Natalie Raitano as Nikki Franco in _VIP_. http://www.spe.sony.com/tv/shows/vip/tbio_nf.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:48:27 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/14/99 9:26:15 PM, Anthe wrote: <<>Although I shouldn't have thought it, perhaps I'm just older at nearly 32 than most people on the list and thus have advanced further in my career.>> Older at 32? Cute. This discussion has been most interesting and just catapulted me into, ahem, sff. Women in sff -- drones? managers? own own "businesses." Do they work at all? Hmmm... I need to think about this, but I throw it out to the list because it struck me as a valid question: what DO our heroines DO? Jaran, for instance... what does Tess work at? She's been to school. Preparing for what? Presumably she will occupy some kind of job in her brother's "business," that is -- she will run it. Run the rebellion? Run the world he owns? Be a "Leader"? Whatever that means. (Actually it means something to me because I have tried to work out what the heroine in my novel actually does with her time.) How important is work in sff? It seems to be slightly different from what we know. Slightly? Maybe a lot different. We have the honorable Honor Harrington in charge of her various ships and then as an administrator on Grayson. In Tepper's The family Tree, our heroine is a cop but we don't see her doing much by the way of cop-work. Don't think Ti-Jeanne had a job in Brown Girl. What is going on here? Comments? best, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:51:27 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: "Brain Sex" (Re: Raising androgynous children.) Comments: cc: rit@rit.org In-Reply-To: Julieanne 's message of Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:25:39 +1000 Julieanne wrote: > On the lighter side... > > I recently saw a documentary about a semi-scientific book called > "Brain Sex" - (can't remember the author or any details, sorry) > about gender differences in the nervous system and brain. The > documentary also showed some of the experiments on very young > babies they used in the book. [...] Funny story, but this book and TV program is really poor science. The following is a summary by Sharon Presley of her criticisms of "Brain Sex". Presley is a psychologist, Ph.D., who has for the last 10 years studied and taught research on sex and gender. She is also the founder of Resources for Independent Thinking, http://www.rit.org/. The summary was posted to the Rand-fem list (http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/randian-feminism.html) on 20 Nov 1998. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "But sometimes, the best man for a job, is a woman." -- Ares, in Xena: Warrior Princess # 20, _Ties That Bind_ --------- From: Sharon Presley This is one of the most dishonest books on the topic I have ever read. I can refute every page (which I may yet do in print) but for now, here is a summary of the problems with this book: Critique of "Brain Sex" (by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel) Purports to show research evidence for differences in the brain that provide a biological basis for gender-related behavior. 1. Distorts by omission. Fails to cite researchers who contradict them or reach different conclusions. No mention of contrary studies. For example: Anke Ehrhardt (a major, major researcher in this area) is listed in bibliography but not mentioned in text. Her conclusions about prenatal hormonal abnormalities are very different than theirs. She is not adverse to finding such links, by the way, just careful. Kinsbourne, a researcher in brain-hemisphere differences, concludes that no reliable sex difference exist. 2. No mention at all of the major critiques of the studies they cite. For example: Ehrhardt's review of research on abnormal prenatal hormones (which reaches different conclusions that these authors) Ehrhardt's critique of Dominican Republic study. Fausto-Sterling's "Myths of Gender" (though it's in bibliography) Ruth Bleier's critiques 3. Distort findings and exaggerates size of differences. Ex: "Most women cannot read a map as well as a man." No study backs that up. Even in spatial abilities, the overlap is greater that the differences. 4. Claims many sex differences are well-established and noncontroversial that are in fact not! For example: Sex differences in math, verbal and spatial abilities-contrary to what they claim, the consensus in psychology is that overall group differences in math and verbal abilities have disappeared and differences in spatial abilities, while consistent, are not great enough to explain behavioral differences. Brain hemisphere differences-still very controversial. (I have a handout available on this) 5. Innuendoes that mislead because no research backs them up; pure speculation "could it be that..." "may be..." 6. Lies For example: "Virtually every professional scientist and researcher has concluded that the brains of men and women are different." "Even researchers most hostile to the acknowledgment of sex differences agree that [aggression] is a male feature, and one which cannot be explained by social conditioning." These statements are patent falsehoods. Researchers that they cite in their bibliography would disagree with these statements, let alone the researchers they leave out. For example: Anke Ehrhardt, Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, John Money, Marcel Kinsbourne [neuro-psychologists who are major researchers in this area] Anne Fausto-Sterling, Ruth Bleier, Ruth Hubbard (all biologists) Janet Hyde, Carol Tavris (both are psychologists). Hyde is a major researcher in gender behavior and well-regarded within psychology. Tavris is one of most balanced, reasonable, thoughtful writers in the field. ---------end-of-summary ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:12:35 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: origins of the term "speculative fiction" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Pat is, to the best of my knowledge correct, and this is almost certainly the first use in print of the term (outside, possibly, a "sercon [serious and constructive] fanzine"); however, Judith Merrill deserves the credit, I believe, for "rescuing" the term from obscurity and applying it to the range of fiction we refer to today--wherein Speculative Fiction means not only science fiction but the entire range of fantastic fiction...initially, she was looking for a more useful term than science-fantasy to encompass all that she sought to include in her YEAR'S BEST S-F anthologies, as well as attempting to encourage SF writers to embrace a wider range of styles and approaches in their fiction. Harlan Ellison's DANGEROUS VISIONS, after all, rose out of the ashes of a project to be edited by Merrill, and her ENGLAND SWINGS SF was influential, if less so than her annual. Of course, the importance of magazine editors Cele Goldsmith/Lalli (FANTASTIC and AMAZING), Ted Carnell (NEW WORLDS and SCIENCE FANTASY), Avram Davidson and Ed Ferman (F&SF), and Merrill's ex-husband Frederik Pohl (GALAXY, IF, WORLDS OF TOMORROW, INTERNATIONAL SF)too often is overlooked in the development of what would often be tagged "New Wave" SF, as well...along with Damon Knight's work as editor at Berkley (and of the ORBIT series of anthologies), and Larry Shaw's at Lancer Books, to say nothing of all the groundwork laid in the '50s by these folks and others, for the authors of the kind of fiction who would strive to embrace the "speculative fiction" tag for their work, in the latter '60s NEW WORLDS and elsewhere. --- Patricia Monk wrote: > The term was used by Robert A. Heinlein in "On the > Writing of Speculative > Fiction" in _Of Worlds Beyond_ edited by Lloyd > Arthur Eshbach (Chicago: > Advent Press, 1964; rp. 1970). This edition of the > book is a reprint of > the Fantasy Press limited edition of 1947. I don't > know if he was the > first person to use the term; this is just the > earliest use I have come > across within the field. > > ************************************************************** > Dr Patricia Monk > patmonk@is.dal.ca > Department of English > Dalhousie University > HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 > > ignorance is curable * stupidity is > forever > ************************************************************** > > On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Erik Tsao wrote: > > > Would anyone, per chance, know where the term, > "speculative fiction" came > > from? I'm using it in my dissertation prospectus > and would like a more > > specific sense of its genealogy than I presently > have. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Erik > > > > Erik Tsao > > Graduate Student/T.A. > > Dept. of English > > 51 W. Warren > > Wayne State University > > Detroit, MI 48202 > > > > "In a revolution, when the ceaseless slow > accumulation of centuries bursts > > into volcanic eruption, the meteoric flares and > flights above are a > > meaningless chaos and lend themselves to infinite > caprice and romanticism > > unless the observer sees them always as > projections of the subsoil from > > which they came."--C. L. R. James > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:14:42 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Raising androgynous children. In-Reply-To: "Demetria M. Shew" 's message of Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:19:52 EDT Madrone wrote: > I do agree that one of the problems with feminist science > fiction is that many characters are androgynous, in that they > show characteristics that are human rather than gendered. This is supposed to be bad?! This is not a problem, it's a feature. Progress, not problem. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no "Virtue is the same in man and in woman." -- Plutarch ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:34:15 -0500 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: Raising androgynous children MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > what are some > good works of science fiction (or whatever!) that posits and develops a > significantly different economic/corporate model than any existing or > known about? > the first thing that leaps to mind is Ursula Leguin's _The Dispossessed_. There is also some sort of economic shift (toward control of women) in Margaret Atwood's _The Handmaid's Tale_, but this is not very central to the story. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:30:16 -0500 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: Sociobiology Again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 14 Apr 99, at 0:36, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > This seems like a very strange statement to me. Is Stephen > J. Gould a scientist? Well he has a Ph.D [snip} Gould is a populariser - nothing wrong in that. On some subjects, he's sound; on others which have political connotations (like the male/female differences etc) he was once considered sound, but with shifts of the political wind, he's now unsound. He's no different from other scientists - they're all human beings with differing abilities, personal agendas, and desire for recognition. The great power of scientific method, in contrast to techniques in other disciplines, ensures that individual fallibilities are taken into account. Your citing Gould's qualifications lends no weight to your argument. Again, unlike in other disciplines, scientists are not impressed by baubles but by results; there's no Scientific Holy Writ which must be approached with unthinking awe and respect (at least not in Europe)! Many scientists with great achievements (Nobel prizes even) in one sphere have been shown to be foolish cranks in another. Linus Pauling is perhaps the best example. Some (like Burt) lived long, honoured lives but were found to have been cheats and liars after their deaths. Some (like Lilley and his talking dolphins) deceived themselves. Others (like Lodge or Taylor) were hopeless dupes in the hands of obvious charlatans. Still others (like Sagan) were duped by the KGB (you'll recall Zarubin's boasts on the "nuclear winter" debacle). Still more others (like Albert Einstein who strongly supported Stalin at the height of his purges) were political innocents. Fraud, foolishness and gullibility are at least as common in the sciences as in any other sphere - scientists aren't saints or demi-gods.. > The fact that he may or may not be a Marxist, > or may or may not have a "Marxism-oriented" > attitude (whatever that is) in his approach to life or > science isn't particularly relevant. It is if the political theory dictates what the results of a scientific investigation should be before the work has been started. Gould's interpretations have been consistently Marxist, and have cleaved to the party line consistently from the word "Go". There's nothing wrong with that provided the people who use a scientist's conclusions know and can discount his personal bias. This is quite different from extreme things like the Zhdankov campaign to purge Soviet physics of the insidious theory of relativity, or Hoffmann's drive to rid Nazi science of Jewish influence. > Many scientists have strong political views > covering the entire spectrum from right to > left. Sometimes those views may influence their > work, but that in and of itself doesn't > invalidate that work if their theories match > the observable data. All I can say to that is: "What is [observable data]? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer". Again few sets of "observable data" can be taken in such a way that they cannot be influenced or selectively interpreted by researcher bias. Almost every set of data or interpretation is biased in some way - read through *any* refereed scientific journal and I'm prepared to bet you that at least one article in every ten is devoted to debunking the work of some other scientist. Scientific method's stringent requirement for the duplication of one scientist's work by other, independent workers stops not only obvious cheats (like Utah "cold fusion" fiasco), but the more subtle bias which pervades research. > Do your obviously strong political views > invalidate your work? I hope not. I don't > think mine do. In the strict sense, I'm politically neutral - never been a member of any political party, never voted, never even attended a political meeting in a place where I'm entitled to vote, and with interest only in how a party's political and social policies will affect the business environment. My "political" views, which are really views about the functioning of economics within our society, are congruent with the environment in which I live and work, and with the services my own company offers. If I'd been a socialist with strongly labour-oriented views on topics such as "right- & down-sizing", "productivity", "downgrading of skilled jobs", "export of employment from developed countries" and so on, cognitive dissonance would make my work impossible. I'd be very surprised if your political views didn't affect your work. This isn't an insult but an observation. It's the same with all researchers. Ask your post-graduate students - if they're good people, you'll find that they can predict your response to almost any research problem within your field. Like all of us, you've got your knee-jerk reactions. For example : I've just started a (revised) part-time Ph D study on "cash flow" between Europe and the Third World since 1945. A trendy-lefty would conclude that pouring billions into Africa to make waBenzi was a noble exercise; a Marxist would conclude that Marxism has succeeded in Africa because such bastions of Socialism like Mocambique have triumphantly increased food production by a magnificent minus 200% in only 25 years. I leave you to imagine what I'm likely to conclude! AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:52:01 -0500 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: Sociobiology Again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 14 Apr 99, at 0:36, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > This seems like a very strange statement to me. Is Stephen > J. Gould a scientist? Well he has a Ph.D [snip} Gould is a populariser - nothing wrong in that. On some subjects, he's sound; on others which have political connotations (like the male/female differences etc) he was once considered sound, but with shifts of the political wind, he's now unsound. He's no different from other scientists - they're all human beings with differing abilities, personal agendas, and desire for recognition. The great power of scientific method, in contrast to techniques in other disciplines, ensures that individual fallibilities are taken into account. Your citing Gould's qualifications lends no weight to your argument. Again, unlike in other disciplines, scientists are not impressed by baubles but by results; there's no Scientific Holy Writ which must be approached with unthinking awe and respect (at least not in Europe)! Many scientists with great achievements (Nobel prizes even) in one sphere have been shown to be foolish cranks in another. Linus Pauling is perhaps the best example. Some (like Burt) lived long, honoured lives but were found to have been cheats and liars after their deaths. Some (like Lilley and his talking dolphins) deceived themselves. Others (like Lodge or Taylor) were hopeless dupes in the hands of obvious charlatans. Still others (like Sagan) were duped by the KGB (you'll recall Zarubin's boasts on the "nuclear winter" debacle). Still more others (like Albert Einstein who supported Stalin at the height of his purges) were political innocents. Fraud, foolishness and gullibility are at least as common in the sciences as in any other sphere - scientists aren't saints or demi-gods.. > The fact that he may or may not be a Marxist, > or may or may not have a "Marxism-oriented" > attitude (whatever that is) in his approach to life or > science isn't particularly relevant. It is if the political theory dictates what the results of a scientific investigation should be before the work has been started. Gould's interpretations have been consistently Marxist, and have cleaved to the party line consistently from the word "Go". There's nothing wrong with that provided the people who use a scientist's conclusions know and can discount his personal bias. This is quite different from extreme things like the Zhdankov campaign to purge Soviet physics of the insidious theory of relativity, or Hoffmann's drive to rid Nazi science of Jewish influence. > Many scientists have strong political views > covering the entire spectrum from right to > left. Sometimes those views may influence their > work, but that in and of itself doesn't > invalidate that work if their theories match > the observable data. All I can say to that is: "What is [observable data]? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer". Again few sets of "observable data" can be taken in such a way that they cannot be influenced or selectively interpreted by researcher bias. Almost every set of data or interpretation is biased in some way - read through *any* refereed scientific journal and I'm prepared to bet you that at least one article in every ten is devoted to debunking the work of some other scientist. Scientific method's stringent requirement for the duplication of one scientist's work by other, independent workers stops not only obvious cheats (like Utah "cold fusion" fiasco), but the more subtle bias which pervades research. > Do your obviously strong political views > invalidate your work? I hope not. I don't > think mine do. In the strict sense, I'm politically neutral - never been a member of any political party, never voted, never even attended a political meeting in a place where I'm entitled to vote, and with interest only in how a party's political and social policies will affect the business environment. My "political" views, which are really views about the functioning of economics within our society, are congruent with the environment in which I live and work, and with the services my own company offers. If I'd been a socialist with strongly labour-oriented views on topics such as "right- & down-sizing", "productivity", "downgrading of skilled jobs", "export of employment from developed countries" and so on, cognitive dissonance would make my work impossible. I'd be very surprised if your political views didn't affect your work. This isn't an insult but an observation. It's the same with all researchers. Ask your post-graduate students - if they're good people, you'll find that they can predict your thoughts on almost any research problem within your field. Like all of us, you've got your knee-jerk reactions. For example : I've just started a (revised) part-time Ph D study on "cash flow" between Europe and the Third World since 1945. A trendy-lefty would conclude that pouring billions into Africa to make waBenzi was a noble exercise; a Marxist would conclude that Marxism has succeeded in Africa because such bastions of Socialism like Mocambique have triumphantly increased food production by a magnificent minus 200% in only 25 years. I leave you to imagine what I'm likely to conclude! AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1