Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG0205A" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:22:51 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Arwen Vidal Subject: please participate! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi. I'm a women's studies student doing a project on feminism and science fiction, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd participate in a survey I've cooked up. This survey is for female and male fans of science fiction. Feel free to email me your responses if you don't want to post to the list (princessarwen@yahoo.com). Thanks! Feminism and Science Fiction Survey Gender: Age (optional): 1. How many science fiction works (short stories, novels, fan fiction, etc.) do you read per year? 2. Who are some of your favorite authors? 3. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a male character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these men do you identify with and/or admire? 4. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a female character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these women do you identify with and/or admire? 5. How do you believe women are typically portrayed in science fiction works? 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: female authors, male authors, neither, or both? 7. Do you believe that science fiction is an appropriate genre to explore feminist issues? 8. Do you enjoy feminist science fiction? 9. Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of feminist science fiction works published in the future? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 15:35:29 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "*~Rain~*" Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Feminism and Science Fiction Survey Gender: female Age (optional): 20 1. How many science fiction works (short stories, novels, fan fiction, etc.) do you read per year? Aaaaagh! Too many to count! I read a *lot*! 2. Who are some of your favorite authors? Ursula Le Guin, Tanith Lee, Mercedes Lackey, Anne McCaffrey... 3. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a male character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these men do you identify with and/or admire? Well, I love to write, so when I write science fiction I'm usually not so fond of my male characters. But if I had to pick something, I would say that I enjoy seeing strength, coolheadedness and sensitivity, as well as a sense of humor, in male characters. 4. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a female character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these women do you identify with and/or admire? Actually, mostly the same as the last question. With the added factthat I like to see women with all those roles who are also feminine. Nothing worse than reading a bad lesbian male fantasy! :P 5. How do you believe women are typically portrayed in science fiction works? It's getting better,but they either seem to have big breasts and be rather flaky, or they're the psychoticfighterbitchfromHell. 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: female authors, male authors, neither, or both? females, generally. 7. Do you believe that science fiction is an appropriate genre to explore feminist issues? Absolutely! 8. Do you enjoy feminist science fiction? Yes! 9. Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of feminist science fiction works published in the future? I love feminist science fiction, so gimme more! -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:30:32 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Erika Maria Lacey Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu In-Reply-To: <20020501192251.36640.qmail@web21411.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > Feminism and Science Fiction Survey > > Gender: Female Age (optional): 21 > 1. How many science fiction works (short stories, novels, fan > fiction, etc.) do you read per year? Novels - 200+ Short stories - 100+ Fan fiction - 500+ (actually don't know, but an awful lot) > 2. Who are some of your favorite authors? Charles de Lint, Joan Slonczewski, Lois McMaster Bujold, Terry Dowling, Freda Warrington, Neil Gaiman, Connie Willis ... (ahem, a few there are fantastists) > 3. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a male character in science > fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these men do you > identify with and/or admire? No, I don't. > 4. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a female character in science > fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these women do you > identify with and/or admire? No, I don't. > 5. How do you believe women are typically portrayed in science > fiction works? In the stuff I read? Often enough quite well. Those which aren't I tend to put out of my mind, so I've something of a skewed sample. Even so, I would rather see more stuff where women have more active roles than they usually do. > 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: > female authors, male authors, neither, or both? Generally female authors. The male authors I read tend to write more main male characters than female, and then, more as the person to be saved or some such. > 7. Do you believe that science fiction is an appropriate genre to > explore feminist issues? Yes. > 8. Do you enjoy feminist science fiction? Yes. If I find a writer who writes in a feminist way I tend to track down the rest of their work and pimp it off to anyone within hearing. > 9. Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of feminist > science fiction works published in the future? More. There are a variety of things people can tackle that I'd be interested in seeing. -- : ICQ 46049944 : erikaml@ihug.com.au : www.grailsearch.cjb.net : : "I have often regretted my speech, but never my silence." : : -- Xenocrates (386-314 B.C.E.) : -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:13:51 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Arwen Vidal Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020502090802.009f1c10@pop.ihug.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thank you for participating! Rest assured, all surveys will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous. Arwen Vidal California State University, Northridge __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:46:29 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Pamela Large Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arwen Vidal" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] please participate! > Hi. I'm a women's studies student doing a project on feminism and > science fiction, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd participate in > a survey I've cooked up. This survey is for female and male fans of > science fiction. Feel free to email me your responses if you don't > want to post to the list (princessarwen@yahoo.com). Thanks! > > > Feminism and Science Fiction Survey > > Gender: Female > Age (optional): 57 > > 1. How many science fiction works (short stories, novels, fan > fiction, etc.) do you read per year? 75-100 > > 2. Who are some of your favorite authors? Sheri Tepper, Joan Slonczewski, Lois McMaster Bujold, Elizabeth Moon, Ursula Le Guin, Vonda McIntyre, Joan D. and Vernor Vinge. (All I can think of at 5:30 on a Wed!) > > 3. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a male character in science > fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these men do you > identify with and/or admire? I suppose the male characters I admire are the ones who don't notice they are fighting/playing with/beside a female. Any character to whom gender is coincidental. > > 4. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a female character in science > fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these women do you > identify with and/or admire? That is probably why I read the ones I do. I ALWAYS feel like I am the protagonist, and that can continue on into my dreams if the author is espcially adept! (I live very quietly, so I imagine living in another time and place, with different opportunities and challenges.) > > 5. How do you believe women are typically portrayed in science > fiction works? Well, I avoid reading, or stop reading, any SF work that treats women as less than equals, so they are portrayed as quite strong, intelligent and capable in the stories I read. There is a tendency to make them the more vulnerable part of a love/romantic situation, and I definitely hate that, but have to accept it. > > 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: > female authors, male authors, neither, or both? I definitely think most men miss the boat on women, but Vernor Vinge does a good job. Anyone who writes women and men as mostly alike, with the real differences not weakening either gender, is a delight to read. The writers who mix up gender with sentient species from here and there are the most fun! > > 7. Do you believe that science fiction is an appropriate genre to > explore feminist issues? > Very definitely. > 8. Do you enjoy feminist science fiction? It soothes my soul. > > 9. Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of feminist > science fiction works published in the future? Much, much more. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness > http://health.yahoo.com > > -------------------------------------------------- > This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for > discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To > unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > > Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:56:31 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "*~Rain~*" Subject: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, I'm pretty sure this topic has been discussed on this list numerous times, but since I'm new I haven't had the pleasure of participating. I don't consider myself a feminist the way the media portrays feminists. (You know, the radical, down-with-all-things-male types). But I'm wondering...In my own writing I've been exploring sexuality. Many of the female charactersI write about have wound up in lesbian relationships. (There's just something about Amazon women that really appeals to me.) I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters qualify the work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction "feminist" as opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my case "Lesbian". ;) Very curious to hear the answers! Rain -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:09:50 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <000201c1f185$5731a420$cab8fea9@illandaria> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: >I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters qualify the >work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction "feminist" as >opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my case "Lesbian". ;) Any work that treats women as unique and valuable individuals aside from their relationship to one or more men is feminist by definition. I happen to think that there is no such animal as a male "feminist," despite the fact that at least some men believe something along those lines, but this is personal prejudice, since most of the men I've noticed that profess this position seem also to possess a fond hope that this will help them score. There seems to be some support for this position in the literature, since it is important to be able to identify the standpoint of an individual professing a given position so that one can determine whether the speaker is on the outside looking in or on the inside looking around. This is the difference between a "lesbian" and a "supportive" person who believes in the freedom to express one's sexuality as one is moved to. PFLAG members are, for the most part, neither lesbians nor gay men and it muddies thought if we have people appropriating terms of discourse for political or sentimental reasons. I also object to women, like Laura Doyle, Camile Paglia, Katie Roiphe, and many others who appropriate the label "feminist" in a way that robs it of any real meaning. So Laura Doyle, who apparently sees no contradiction between being a self-described "feminist" while urging women to "surrender" to their husbands authority and sexual claims, seems more appropriately described as nutty. So Paglia and Roiphe, who both profess to believe that women who are raped "asked for it," or "deserve it" because they were sexual teases, but assert that they (and they alone) are the "real feminist," might be better seen as collaborators or apologists with financial incentives make the specious claims they do. So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by their roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary virtues that women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) is not, in fact, a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- identified or brainwashed. And so, Feminist SF is, in my opinion, necessarily written by a woman. "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." - Rebecca West, 1913. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:47:35 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sarah Young Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Lee Anne Phillips > >At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: >>I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters qualify >>the >>work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction "feminist" as >>opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my case "Lesbian". ;) > >I happen to think that there is no such animal as a >male "feminist," despite the fact that at least some men believe >something along those lines, but this is personal prejudice, >since most of the men I've noticed that profess this position >seem also to possess a fond hope that this will help them score. > >There seems to be some support for this position in the literature, >since it is important to be able to identify the standpoint of an >individual professing a given position so that one can determine >whether the speaker is on the outside looking in or on the inside >looking around. This is the difference between a "lesbian" and a >"supportive" person who believes in the freedom to express one's >sexuality as one is moved to. PFLAG members are, for the most >part, neither lesbians nor gay men and it muddies thought if we >have people appropriating terms of discourse for political or >sentimental reasons. > >So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and >worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar >vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by >their roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary >virtues that women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) >is not, in fact, a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- >identified or brainwashed. > >And so, Feminist SF is, in my opinion, necessarily written by a >woman. > Although I agree with a good deal of your post (we seem to have pet peeves about a number of the same people *grin*), I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of male feminists. This stems from a few different points... First of all, I conceive of feminism as a specific manner of understanding and interpreting the world, combined with a certain set of behaviors/intentions regarding making a conscious change to the current system. I believe that feminism, by nature, is a political perspective, which is very different from the kind of identity issues you were discussing regarding lesbian/gay identity. Secondly, I believe that a completely dichotomous view of gender (or even biosex) is false, and aside from its fundamental inaccuracy, is counter-productive to creating the kind of world I want to live in. Thirdly, my experience with male feminists has been substantially different from yours; those that I have met have not, in my presence, used their feminism as a "come-on" at all. Anyway, I just felt a need to voice my views on this... --Sarah _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:00:16 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020501202910.00aa0ec0@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:09 PM 5/1/2002 -0700, you wrote: >At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: >>I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters qualify the >>work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction "feminist" as >>opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my case "Lesbian". ;) > >So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and >worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar >vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by >their roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary >virtues that women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) >is not, in fact, a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- >identified or brainwashed. > I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always been the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve respect, basic human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet they are by nature intrinsically different (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be recognized and responded to for their unique attributes. How does one maintain that balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit like having 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent would want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal in that they are both your children, yet they require very different responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got me solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at that, even in the patriarchal society of Pern. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:43:13 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sarah Young Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Melissa Bowersock > >I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always been >the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve respect, basic >human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet they are by nature >intrinsically different (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be >recognized and responded to for their unique attributes. How does one >maintain that balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit >like having 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent >would want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO >correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal in >that they are both your children, yet they require very different >responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, >recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got me >solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at that, >even in the patriarchal society of Pern. > >Melissa Bowersock >http://www.newmoonrising.net > Here, again, I feel a need to bring up the issue of gender dichotomy. For any given trait, there's something of a bell curve in terms of its incidence among male-bodied people, and a slightly different bell curve in terms of incidence in female-bodied people. Although this kind of information can give you broad statistical information about a population, it is utterly useless in interacting with a single human being. For example - the median height for men is greater than the median height for women. However, if I tell you that I'm going to introduce you to one man and one woman, randomly selected from the population, can you tell me ahead of time, with any certainty, which will be taller? The same goes for all of the traits we consider to be "gendered" - passivity, aggression, empathy, shoe size, you-name-it. Additionally, all of these dichotomies are strongly challenged by queer theory, transgender, intersex, and genderqueer people. I absolutely believe that we have created an utterly false dichotomy regarding gender, and that we reinforce it over and over in a million different ways. The same can be said about our views on biosex (we don't talk much about the broad continuum of intersex traits, partially because we have a medical system that "corrects" anyone who's out-of-line with the dichotomy), our views on sexual orientation (the fact that our primary way of defining people's sexualities is by gender preference. Can anyone explain to me why that is more or less useful that defining people's sexualities by other types of preference?). I very strongly believe that we are so entrenched in this dichotomous view that we often don't even realize that we're taking it as the underlying logic for entire world views. I do acknowledge that as long as the world continues to believe in this absolute dichotomy, and discriminate based on it, we will need to address issues that specifically affect people labeled as "women" and people labeled as "men". However, this is a practical concern, not a reflection of underlying truth. What's the first thing people ask upon hearing of a new birth? Can you tell me why? --Sarah _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:24:39 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:43 AM 5/2/2002 -0400, you wrote: >>From: Melissa Bowersock >> >>I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always been >>the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve respect, basic >>human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet they are by nature >>intrinsically different (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be >>recognized and responded to for their unique attributes. How does one >>maintain that balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit >>like having 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent >>would want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO >>correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal in >>that they are both your children, yet they require very different >>responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, >>recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got me >>solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at that, >>even in the patriarchal society of Pern. >> >>Melissa Bowersock >>http://www.newmoonrising.net >> > >Here, again, I feel a need to bring up the issue of gender dichotomy. For >any given trait, there's something of a bell curve in terms of its incidence >among male-bodied people, and a slightly different bell curve in terms of >incidence in female-bodied people. Although this kind of information can >give you broad statistical information about a population, it is utterly >useless in interacting with a single human being. For example - the median >height for men is greater than the median height for women. However, if I >tell you that I'm going to introduce you to one man and one woman, randomly >selected from the population, can you tell me ahead of time, with any >certainty, which will be taller? The same goes for all of the traits we >consider to be "gendered" - passivity, aggression, empathy, shoe size, >you-name-it. > >Additionally, all of these dichotomies are strongly challenged by queer >theory, transgender, intersex, and genderqueer people. I absolutely believe >that we have created an utterly false dichotomy regarding gender, and that >we reinforce it over and over in a million different ways. The same can be >said about our views on biosex (we don't talk much about the broad continuum >of intersex traits, partially because we have a medical system that >"corrects" anyone who's out-of-line with the dichotomy), our views on sexual >orientation (the fact that our primary way of defining people's sexualities >is by gender preference. Can anyone explain to me why that is more or less >useful that defining people's sexualities by other types of preference?). I >very strongly believe that we are so entrenched in this dichotomous view >that we often don't even realize that we're taking it as the underlying >logic for entire world views. > >I do acknowledge that as long as the world continues to believe in this >absolute dichotomy, and discriminate based on it, we will need to address >issues that specifically affect people labeled as "women" and people labeled >as "men". However, this is a practical concern, not a reflection of >underlying truth. > >What's the first thing people ask upon hearing of a new birth? Can you tell >me why? > >--Sarah To this last question, I think the answer is: our largest descriptor is that we are human first, then either male or female second. Beyond that, everything else is pretty much details. I agree that gender, and gender characteristics, are much more of a range than a division, more a difference of degree and not kind, but broadly speaking, there are tendancies. The cliches are only cliches because they are true more often than not. Do I want to be classified by generalities? No, I don't, but neither can I dismiss them. The fact that they don't hold up in all cases doesn't make them immaterial. I am 5'10", much taller than the average woman, yet it remains true that most women are shorter than men. The fact that I don't fit into that generalization doesn't make the generalization untrue. Do I want people to recognize me for the unique human being I am, regardless of my gender and/or "female" characteristics? Yes, of course. And yet I am still human first, female second, my own unique self third. Again, the rub for me is, how do we acknowledge our sameness (all human) and our differences (sexuality, perceptions, modalities, emotionality, mentality, etc.) at the same time, without disregarding or trivializing either? Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > >_________________________________________________________________ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:39:05 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:47 AM 5/2/02 -0400, Sarah Young wrote: >Although I agree with a good deal of your post (we seem to have pet peeves >about a number of the same people *grin*), I have to respectfully disagree >on the issue of male feminists. Not a problem, although I admitted up front that my belief was prejudice. I skipped over the complication of the fluidity of gender simply for time and space, not because that wouldn't be a valid critique vis a vis specific individuals who might identify as female at some point in their lives nor to diminish the experience of intersexuals who identify as neither male nor female, but something other. But I still think that "male feminist" muddies the waters, although I agree that it is a political stance. Distantly analogous political terms might include "White Power" or "Christian Identity Movement," both specifically advocated by and centered on white guys. While it would be possible to imagine an African-American White Power advocate, perhaps even in the person of a completely hypothetical Supreme Court Justice, this would be, so to speak, a horse of a different color. Likewise the Raza and American Indian Movements are inherently grounded in a standpoint that doesn't allow for white people to "include themselves in," however sympathetic. In many political stances the standpoint of the participants is central to the validity of the movement, so African-Americans have a Freedom Movement that shares many goals with a white Abolitionist Movement without much overlap in actual membership, and the viewpoints and standpoints of the two partisans differ enormously. As the old joke about the relative contributions of chickens and pigs to the traditional American breakfast goes, the chicken is supportive but the pig is committed. And the words "male feminist" have historically been used dishonestly, to describe either men who "knew what was good for women," or those who profess a sort of angst-ridden "mea culpa" that tends to cloy, at least in my opinion. One might reference Tania Modleski's Feminism Without Women for a similar critique. "Male Feminism" tends to coopt women in favor of a vague sort of "gender studies," that segues rather seamlessly into Iron John and hairy-chested drumming and banging on logs off in the woods somewhere. In these terms, The Man Show is the lab portion of Feminism 101 and Howard Stern the male counterpart to Catherine McKinnon or Andrea Dworkin. Scholarly Reference: http://www.dyxploitation.nu/femdick.html (Note: The above link is extremely ribald and may not be suitable for children. But then, neither is Howard Stern. Parental supervision is advised.) So I am leery of Friday, despite some nostalgic fondness for the character I discovered as a young woman, and far less suspicious of Jael, despite the superficial similarity of their "independence" and personal autonomy. Heinlein's "feminist" take on "what do women really want" seems rather blurry around the edges, and is oddly reminiscent of the "Playboy Philosophy," at least to me. I can agree that Heinlein was fiercely proud of the accomplishments of his wife, "appreciated" women, and all that, but he was, in the end, and with all due respect, a dickhead. Russ, on the other hand, presents women I can understand. Even Moore's Jirel of Joiry seems more "real" to me than the pseudo-feminist bimbos who seem to crop up all the time in Heinlein's feminist and egalitarian universe. But hey, that's just me talking. What do I know? -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:14:19 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sarah Young Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sarah - I think your last post came only to me, rather than the group... Since I snipped so much in replying, you might want to repost your original to the list... --Sarah >From: Sarah Caufield > >hi sarah, > >you comments about the gender dichotomy are well-written - i'm enjoying >following the discussion. just one question... > > > Additionally, all of these dichotomies are strongly challenged by queer > > theory, transgender, intersex, and genderqueer people. I absolutely >believe > >what do you mean by "genderqueer"? the same as "queer"? i've just never >heard the word before, was wondering if it was another definition i don't >know. > Although there's definitely an overlap in people who use each term, genderqueer generally refers to people who self-identify outside or across the gender continuum, and often face issues of non-acceptance by either the straight or trans communities. Being bi, I can strongly empathize with the recurrent event of being told "but.. but... you _have_ to choose one or the other!". My personal identification as genderqueer is strongly influenced by my feminism, actually. I feel that I range across the gender continuum in a manner that is contrary to a dichotomous view of gender. Although I don't experience much in the way of social issues regarding this (I appear relatively normatively gendered, partially because gender standards for women have broadened in a way that those for men haven't yet), I find a sense of community and common experience with genderqueer folks that is more comfortable than what I find anywhere else. >and.. > > > What's the first thing people ask upon hearing of a new birth? Can you >tell > > me why? > >good point, but it could also be that that's one of the few things that >can define a new baby, too. :) *chuckle* True, and I'd probably have less of a knee-jerk reaction to it if it weren't facilitating an environment in which intersexed babies are mutilated before they can ever give consent, and, to a lesser extent, statistically significant differences in socialization for males and females from birth on. --Sarah _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:23:54 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020502075058.02cd8050@orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:00 AM 5/2/02 -0500, Melissa Bowersock wrote: >I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always been >the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve respect, basic >human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet they are by nature >intrinsically different (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be >recognized and responded to for their unique attributes. How does one >maintain that balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit >like having 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent >would want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO >correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal in >that they are both your children, yet they require very different >responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, >recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got me >solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at that, >even in the patriarchal society of Pern. I don't disagree with your initial premise, although I start to drift away starting with "intrinsically different." It's clear that the overlap between the various attributes of men and women is at least as great as their differences, despite notable outliers. Even physical differences are so stereotyped in our culture that people undertake dangerous surgery to make their bodies conform to the masculine and feminine "ideals." And even there, there are women who strive to conform to the masculine ideal, as they perceive it, and men vice versa. I well remember my sister practicing "feminine" postures in front of the mirror, while my youngest sister and I scoffed at her folly. I remember the "masculine" posturing of boys in our neighborhood, and am convinced that they were trying on roles every bit as much as my pouty, primping, sister. And I far prefer Darkover to Pern, since there seems to be a bit more room at the edges for women like me. ;-) Although both societies are patriarchal, Bradley more readily allows for the fact that some women won't accept patriarchy in any form, and will go to great lengths to escape its strictures. So the Renunicates represent the true dichotomy between patriarchal and woman-centered worldviews, not the distinction made between the relatively overt oppression of the Dry Towns and their covert similarity to the gendered societal structures of the Domains. The Free Amazons dependence and connection with each other is explicit, and there is no pretence that any of them would be able to survive without that support system and mutual protection. In contrast, McAffrey's women seem more like Queen Bees, proud and independent yet fitting more readily into male hierarchies than female coalitions. They persist in being "exceptions" to the general rule for women and follow more closely the literary path of a traditional male protagonist: rebel, revolutionary, misunderstood progressing to savior, hero, respected member of society. So Menolly in Dragonrider is hated and shunned by the other women but (eventually) gains the respect of the men, who are the ones who seem to count, really. >> http://www.newmoonrising.net Looks interesting. Have you read Victor Koman's The Jehovah Contract? Now *there's* a masculine take on millennial Goddess feminism. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:06:14 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020502093937.00acbd90@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:23 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:00 AM 5/2/02 -0500, Melissa Bowersock wrote: >>I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always been >>the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve respect, basic >>human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet they are by nature >>intrinsically different (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be >>recognized and responded to for their unique attributes. How does one >>maintain that balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit >>like having 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent >>would want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO >>correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal in >>that they are both your children, yet they require very different >>responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, >>recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got me >>solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at that, >>even in the patriarchal society of Pern. > >I don't disagree with your initial premise, although I start to drift away >starting with "intrinsically different." It's clear that the overlap between >the various attributes of men and women is at least as great as their >differences, despite notable outliers. Even physical differences are >so stereotyped in our culture that people undertake dangerous surgery >to make their bodies conform to the masculine and feminine "ideals." > >And even there, there are women who strive to conform to the masculine >ideal, as they perceive it, and men vice versa. I well remember my >sister practicing "feminine" postures in front of the mirror, while my >youngest sister and I scoffed at her folly. I remember the "masculine" >posturing of boys in our neighborhood, and am convinced that they >were trying on roles every bit as much as my pouty, primping, sister. I absolutely agree with you here, and lay that blame totally on the society we've created. If we didn't have such narrow stereotypes for either male or female, maybe more children would be comfortable just growing up as they felt guided internally, instead of forcing themselves to fit a mold. And it's terribly hard to fight that cultural overlay. When my grandkids were born, I was determined to never give them gender-specific toys, and was just as apt to give my granddaughter a dinosaur as a doll, or my grandson a stuffed animal as a car. Funny thing was (to my chagrin), my granddaughter *loves* Barbies and my grandson loves cars, trucks and heavy machinery. Granted, they have not been free of their parents' influence, who are as much a product of the culture as anyone, altho I did raise my daughter to understand that she could be anything she wanted--not anything "female," but anything at all. Since leaving home, she seems to have reverted to the stereotypical wife and mother and appears to be happy in that, so I must at this point butt out. Still rankles, tho. What's funny is that I once went to a Jungian workshop on this very subject, what are male and female really and what do they want to be, how do they want to be acknowledged by society, and interestingly enough, neither men nor women liked the either/or choices they felt they had. When women said they felt forced into the madonna/whore complex, the men adamently said they didn't want their women like that, and when men felt saddled by their macho handle-anything, fix-anything stoicism, the woman said they didn't want that, either. That was when I first started wondering--if none of us *like* these stereotypes, why do they live on? Who is pushing them? Apparently it's a case of everyone (broad brush here) thinking everyone else wants it this way. > >And I far prefer Darkover to Pern, since there seems to be a bit more >room at the edges for women like me. ;-) Although both societies are >patriarchal, Bradley more readily allows for the fact that some women >won't accept patriarchy in any form, and will go to great lengths to >escape its strictures. So the Renunicates represent the true dichotomy >between patriarchal and woman-centered worldviews, not the distinction >made between the relatively overt oppression of the Dry Towns and their >covert similarity to the gendered societal structures of the Domains. >The Free Amazons dependence and connection with each other is >explicit, and there is no pretence that any of them would be able to >survive without that support system and mutual protection. > >In contrast, McAffrey's women seem more like Queen Bees, proud >and independent yet fitting more readily into male hierarchies than >female coalitions. They persist in being "exceptions" to the general >rule for women and follow more closely the literary path of a traditional >male protagonist: rebel, revolutionary, misunderstood progressing >to savior, hero, respected member of society. So Menolly in Dragonrider >is hated and shunned by the other women but (eventually) gains the >respect of the men, who are the ones who seem to count, really. I'll give you that, definitely. McCaffrey's women do fit more comfortably into the patriarchal society than Bradley's, and even their strong features--stubbornness, willfullness, impulse, action--seem to be accepted grudgingly, after the fact, with a wry chuckle from the men. Bradley can do strong women extremely well, and I think she captures the complexity of them, not only their own doubts but the way they fit (or don't fit) into their own societies, as well. I'm not ashamed to admit that Mists of Avalon was a huge inspiration to me, and my current book Goddess Rising echoes (I hope) some of that complexity. > > >> http://www.newmoonrising.net > >Looks interesting. Have you read Victor Koman's The Jehovah Contract? >Now *there's* a masculine take on millennial Goddess feminism. Have not. From your description, not sure I want to. After reading The Moon Under Her Feet, I was expecting so much more from Scorcese's Temptation of Christ and got sorely disappointed. Would the Jehovah Contract start the wheels turning, or just p*ss me off? Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:10:11 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the defense, Sarah. Although it is self-serving to say so, I have claimed something like femi= nist status for almost fifty years and have never tried to use it to score (my Calvinist upbringing must have something to do with that). I can not cla= im to be a feminist critic of fsf, any more than I can claim to be a poststructuralist, though some elements of both may creep into my writing= . I would defend Samuel R. Delany's feminist credentials, however, as both wr= iter and critic; as a gay man, moreover, he can hardly be suspected of posing = that way to pick up chicks. Although it's more directly relevant to the other= list, I recommend his trenchant essay on The Dispossessed and his discussion in= =3D his memoirs of making a conscious attempt to place women on an equal foot= ing with men in his early trilogy. Dave Samuelson Sarah Young wrote: > >From: Lee Anne Phillips > > > >At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: > >>I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters quali= fy > >>the > >>work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction "feminist" as > >>opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my case "Lesbian".= ;) > > > >I happen to think that there is no such animal as a > >male "feminist," despite the fact that at least some men believe > >something along those lines, but this is personal prejudice, > >since most of the men I've noticed that profess this position > >seem also to possess a fond hope that this will help them score. > > > >There seems to be some support for this position in the literature, > >since it is important to be able to identify the standpoint of an > >individual professing a given position so that one can determine > >whether the speaker is on the outside looking in or on the inside > >looking around. This is the difference between a "lesbian" and a > >"supportive" person who believes in the freedom to express one's > >sexuality as one is moved to. PFLAG members are, for the most > >part, neither lesbians nor gay men and it muddies thought if we > >have people appropriating terms of discourse for political or > >sentimental reasons. > > > > > >So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and > >worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar > >vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by > >their roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary > >virtues that women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) > >is not, in fact, a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- > >identified or brainwashed. > > > >And so, Feminist SF is, in my opinion, necessarily written by a > >woman. > > > Although I agree with a good deal of your post (we seem to have pet pee= ves > about a number of the same people *grin*), I have to respectfully disag= ree > on the issue of male feminists. This stems from a few different points= ... > First of all, I conceive of feminism as a specific manner of understand= ing > and interpreting the world, combined with a certain set of > behaviors/intentions regarding making a conscious change to the current > system. I believe that feminism, by nature, is a political perspective= , > which is very different from the kind of identity issues you were discu= ssing > regarding lesbian/gay identity. Secondly, I believe that a completely > dichotomous view of gender (or even biosex) is false, and aside from it= s > fundamental inaccuracy, is counter-productive to creating the kind of w= orld > I want to live in. Thirdly, my experience with male feminists has been > substantially different from yours; those that I have met have not, in = my > presence, used their feminism as a "come-on" at all. > Anyway, I just felt a need to voice my views on this... > > --Sarah > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > -------------------------------------------------- > This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for > discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To > unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > > Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:25:07 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Pamela Large Subject: Survey for Arwen Vidal Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01C1F1D4.654EAC20" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C1F1D4.654EAC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is just a quick note on the subject of who writes better female characters, as asked in Arwen Vidal's survey. I went to a website to find other names used by Susanne Haden Elgin, and found an 'alias' for a mystery writer I had rejected for having shallow women characters (my opinion only). I think the books were well written, but the women weren't. Here is the listing and the site. http://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_s.htm#Scoppettone_Sandra Scoppettone, Sandra [Jack Early] I hope this is a proper message for this list. Pam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arwen Vidal" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] please participate! ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C1F1D4.654EAC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is just a quick note on the = subject of who=20 writes better female characters, as asked in Arwen Vidal's = survey.  I=20 went to a website to find other names used by Susanne Haden Elgin, and = found an=20 'alias' for a mystery writer I had rejected for having shallow = women=20 characters (my opinion only).  I think the books were well written, = but the=20 women weren't.    Here is the listing and the = site.
 
http= ://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_s.htm#Scoppettone_Sandra
 
Scoppettone,=20 Sandra=20
[Jack Early]
 
I hope this is a proper message for this list.
 
Pam
 
 
----- = Original=20 Message -----
From: "Arwen Vidal" <princessarwen@YAHOO.COM>
To:=20 <FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU>
Sent:=20 Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM
Subject: [*FSFFU*] please=20 participate!

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C1F1D4.654EAC20-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:56:35 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020502110658.02d1e240@orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:06 PM 5/2/02 -0500, you wrote: >Have not. From your description, not sure I want to. After reading The Moon >Under Her Feet, I was expecting so much more from Scorcese's Temptation of >Christ and got sorely disappointed. Would the Jehovah Contract start the >wheels turning, or just p*ss me off? Hard to say. The premise is that a dying "hit man" has been hired by a mysterious televangelist to fulfill Nietzsche's dictum (God is dead) in a literal way. To prove that he's serious about the contract, he performs a miracle healing on Ammo, the aforesaid hit man, instantly curing him of late-stage terminal cancer. This gets Ammo's attention. He decides to do some research and formulate a strategy, meeting along the way a consortium of three unlikely women, who may or may not be aspects of the Triple Goddess, and develop a plan, which turns into a surprising combination of sophisticated marketing and high-tech global brain-wave manipulation and telepathy combined with a massive overdose of psychedelics. What the heck, it worked for Timothy Leary. The book can be read on many levels, as a send-up of tough-guy private eyes (Ammo seems a tad outre for a hit man, though not as silly as Guy Noir), as a condensed philosophical treatise on traditional patriarchal theology, as an apocalyptic millennial Utopian novel (On the first day of the year 2000, God will die!), and as an eccentric love story. What happens is strange sort of redemption, with Los Angeles reclaiming it's original name, the City of Our Lady, the Queen of the Angels, and Ammo being rescued not only from death, but possibly from the existential futility of his former life. It's an interesting work, and by no means perfect, but possibly worth reading for the sheer novelty of the conceit. http://www.pulpless.com/tjcblrb.html -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:06:33 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Frances Subject: Re: Survey for Arwen Vidal Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh dear -- I thought you meant they were listing Scoppettone as a pseud for Suzette Haden Elgin! Does she use any other names? Frances ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Large" To: Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:25 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Survey for Arwen Vidal > This is just a quick note on the subject of who writes better female > characters, as asked in Arwen Vidal's survey. I went to a website to find > other names used by Susanne Haden Elgin, and found an 'alias' for a mystery > writer I had rejected for having shallow women characters (my opinion only). > I think the books were well written, but the women weren't. Here is the > listing and the site. > > http://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_s.htm#Scoppettone_Sandra > > Scoppettone, Sandra > [Jack Early] > > I hope this is a proper message for this list. > > Pam > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arwen Vidal" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM > Subject: [*FSFFU*] please participate! > > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:21:30 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Pamela Large Subject: Survey for Arwen Vidal Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frances: Sorry, didn't mean to scare anyone! Here is what was listed under Elgin (I see I typed Susanne instead of Suzette! That's what I get for doing this at work!) Elgin, Patricia Anne Suzette Haden (1936-) [Suzette Haden Elgin, (Patricia Anne) Suzette Haden Wilkins] Elgin, Suzette Haden Patricia Anne Suzette Haden Elgin Pam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances" To: Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Survey for Arwen Vidal > Oh dear -- I thought you meant they were listing Scoppettone as a pseud for > Suzette Haden Elgin! > > Does she use any other names? > > Frances > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pamela Large" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:25 PM > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Survey for Arwen Vidal > > > > This is just a quick note on the subject of who writes better female > > characters, as asked in Arwen Vidal's survey. I went to a website to find > > other names used by Susanne Haden Elgin, and found an 'alias' for a > mystery > > writer I had rejected for having shallow women characters (my opinion > only). > > I think the books were well written, but the women weren't. Here is the > > listing and the site. > > > > http://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_s.htm#Scoppettone_Sandra > > > > Scoppettone, Sandra > > [Jack Early] > > > > I hope this is a proper message for this list. > > > > Pam > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Arwen Vidal" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM > > Subject: [*FSFFU*] please participate! > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for > discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To > unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > > Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020502122501.027d3ec0@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:56 PM 5/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: >At 01:06 PM 5/2/02 -0500, you wrote: >>Have not. From your description, not sure I want to. After reading The Moon >>Under Her Feet, I was expecting so much more from Scorcese's Temptation of >>Christ and got sorely disappointed. Would the Jehovah Contract start the >>wheels turning, or just p*ss me off? > >Hard to say. The premise is that a dying "hit man" has >been hired by a mysterious televangelist to fulfill Nietzsche's >dictum (God is dead) in a literal way. To prove that he's >serious about the contract, he performs a miracle healing >on Ammo, the aforesaid hit man, instantly curing him of >late-stage terminal cancer. This gets Ammo's attention. > >He decides to do some research and formulate a strategy, >meeting along the way a consortium of three unlikely women, >who may or may not be aspects of the Triple Goddess, and >develop a plan, which turns into a surprising combination >of sophisticated marketing and high-tech global brain-wave >manipulation and telepathy combined with a massive overdose >of psychedelics. > >What the heck, it worked for Timothy Leary. > >The book can be read on many levels, as a send-up of >tough-guy private eyes (Ammo seems a tad outre for a >hit man, though not as silly as Guy Noir), as a condensed >philosophical treatise on traditional patriarchal theology, >as an apocalyptic millennial Utopian novel (On the first >day of the year 2000, God will die!), and as an eccentric >love story. > >What happens is strange sort of redemption, with Los >Angeles reclaiming it's original name, the City of Our >Lady, the Queen of the Angels, and Ammo being >rescued not only from death, but possibly from the >existential futility of his former life. > >It's an interesting work, and by no means perfect, but >possibly worth reading for the sheer novelty of the conceit. > >http://www.pulpless.com/tjcblrb.html Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll browse thru used books and see if I can find it. It sounds like something my editor would write/like. He has a book out called Sisters of Glass which sounds similar, with the exception of the religio-spiritual thread. Also in future time LA, also lots of brain-manipulation and an erstwhile romance amid the techno grime. Not quite sure why he decided to publish my book, since he's so into blood-spurting violence and my book has nary a blaster to its name. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:32:32 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <3CD18F13.27C8BD6D@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:10 PM 5/2/02 -0700, Dave Samuelson wrote: >Thanks for the defense, Sarah. > >Although it is self-serving to say so, I have claimed something like feminist >status for almost fifty years and have never tried to use it to score (my >Calvinist upbringing must have something to do with that). I can not claim to >be a feminist critic of fsf, any more than I can claim to be a >poststructuralist, though some elements of both may creep into my writing. I have no problem whatsoever with "something like." I'm sure that of the many hundreds of thousands of words I've written, a few of them have been something like Hemingway, a writer I would prefer not to resemble in any way. But feminism has at it's heart an inner knowledge of systematic oppression based on one's sex that I strongly suspect may feel differently from the outside, however sensitive and aware one might be. To me, and I stress that this is a personal feeling, men claiming to be "feminist" seems like men claiming to know what menstrual cramps feel like, or whether they prefer clitoral or vaginal stimulation during intercourse. While it might be theoretically possible for this to be true, I'd like to be more certain before I gave the idea much credence. While even Simon Legree has the possibility of repentance and compassion for the slaves he previously whipped and brutalized, it hardly seems possible for him to experience what it means to be a slave, or to understand a slave's passion for freedom, even with the best heart and will in the world. That's why Simon Legree might possibly become an Abolitionist, or even a canting hypocrite like Thomas Jefferson who admits the calculated and callous cruelty of slavery but denies that it affects him, even as he experiences the giddy rush of power and concupiscence that *owning* another human being engenders. And he will surely never *understand* what Sojourner Truth meant and felt like when she said, "Ain't I a woman?" He can at best see through a glass, darkly, know in part, not fully, just as he himself cannot be known by any other without metaphor and extrapolative inference. Extrapolation isn't all that reliable when it comes to inner feelings. One doesn't know what it feels like to birth a child until one does it. All the imagination in the world won't help you. Metaphor can only carry one so far until it runs up against the wall of solipsism. > I >would defend Samuel R. Delany's feminist credentials, however, as both writer >and critic; as a gay man, moreover, he can hardly be suspected of posing that >way to pick up chicks. I would agree that Delaney has made a conscious effort to envisage a world free of racism, homophobia, and sexism in future societies. But I'd doubt that he would describe himself as a feminist. In fact, he uses Triton as a vehicle to burst the bubble of "male feminists" by portraying his "feminist" protagonist as an essentially pathetic loser and poseur. Even in a world where people change sex like mood rings, the authentic characters who swirl around the main character are both consistent and revealing in their freedom from limiting labels or stereotypes. Indeed, in Delaney's truly post-feminist world Bron's insistence on discovering (and enabling) "authentic" masculinity by *becoming* an "authentic" female is anachronistic and doomed to failure. Elvis has left the building. Gender and sexuality is fashion and fad on Triton, not an innate destiny, and represents a sort of artistic self-expression rather than a basis for human relations. So Bron's "I am woman, hear me roar" is profoundly silly as he lives out his fantasy of understanding what women really want, and what men really need. He's disconnected and inauthentic, even with himself, and can't even eliminate his own malaise and ennui in the midst of war and terror. In fact, Bron reminds me of a sad character from Ann Bannon's novels of lesbian life in the Sixties stuck on a madcap Merry Prankster tour of the Entire Universe. People are having great sex and great relationships all around him while he drifts in a hermetically-sealed bubble of wistful longing. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 08:26:54 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020502130853.027d0940@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Thanks all for the fascinating discussion, which I've been enjoying! At 2:32 PM -0700 2/5/02, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >To me, and I stress that >this is a personal feeling, men claiming to be "feminist" seems like men >claiming to know what menstrual cramps feel like, or whether they prefer >clitoral or vaginal stimulation during intercourse. While it might be >theoretically possible for this to be true, I'd like to be more certain >before I gave the idea much credence. I identify myself as feminist, although I do have problems with (some) strands of feminism. They're probably along the lines of Gillian Rose's objections, in Love's Work, that feminism too often focusses on women's impotence rather than their potencies. So in my own thinking - years ago, when I had my first child and the whole role thing hit me like a ton of bricks - it was black women writers like Alice Walker and Audre Lord who mattered most to me. I think because black feminists can't ignore issues like race and class as well as sex as being agencies of oppression, and the contradictions and complexities introduced by these other factors lead to a much more complex picture than the binary of oppressors and oppressed. Which leads me to say that I do think there can be male "feminists" despite the oxymoronic flavour. That is, men aware of the fatal stereotypings and limitations of their own gender, and concomitantly aware of how that happens to women: and who understand this is in a more than intellectual fashion. (And I mean fatal: here in Australia the suicide rates among men are through the roof.) I'm certainly not talking of the Iron John spearwavers, which seem to me a wholly reactionary and even misogynist force. Queer theory is mentioned here, and that's one strand of that, but there are possibilities beyond the obvious challenges of gayness to standard masculinities and feminities. Best Alison -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:25:37 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_177.7b6d634.2a033301_boundary" --part1_177.7b6d634.2a033301_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/2/02 1:06:46 PM Central Daylight Time, mjb@NOAO.EDU writes: > Since leaving home, she seems to have reverted to the > stereotypical wife and mother and appears to be happy in that, so I must at > this point butt out. Still rankles, tho. Consoling thought #1 Kids usually retain their parents values, though they may be their parents' age before it surfaces. Consoling thought #2 You taught her she could be anything. It's her choice what that anything looks like. Consoling thought #3: One hopes that when your granddaughter comes out as a feminist dyke, your daughter will be supportive. Lou, feminist bi mom who dreamed of raising smart, strong grrls....now struggling to raise smart, sensitive boys...... PS, re the comment about Heinlein. I retain a fondness for him, despite his dickheadness. He did pretty good for a guy writing in the first half of the last century. He's like the old uncle who you disagree with about just about everything, but still love none the less. L .. And don't worry about the world coming to an end today, it's already tomorrow in Australia. ---- Charles Schultz --part1_177.7b6d634.2a033301_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/2/02 1:06:46 PM Central Daylight Time, mjb@NOAO.EDU writes:


Since leaving home, she seems to have reverted to the
stereotypical wife and mother and appears to be happy in that, so I must at
this point butt out. Still rankles, tho.
Consoling thought #1 Kids usually retain their parents values, though they may be their parents' age before it surfaces.

Consoling thought #2 You taught her she could be anything. It's her choice what that anything looks like.  

Consoling thought #3: One hopes that when your granddaughter comes out as a feminist dyke, your daughter will be supportive.

Lou, feminist bi mom who dreamed of raising smart, strong grrls....now struggling to raise smart, sensitive boys......

PS, re the comment about Heinlein. I retain a fondness for him, despite his dickheadness. He did pretty good for a guy writing in the first half of the last century.
He's like the old uncle who you disagree with about just about everything, but still love none the less.

L
.. And don't worry about the world coming to an end today,  it's already tomorrow in Australia.
---- Charles Schultz
--part1_177.7b6d634.2a033301_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 21:49:13 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/2/02 2:12:34 PM Central Daylight Time, dnsmlsn@CSULB.EDU writes: << lthough it's more directly relevant to the other list, I recommend his trenchant essay on The Dispossessed and his discussion in= his memoirs of making a conscious attempt to place women on an equal footing with men in his early trilogy. >> Where do we find the essay and what's the name of his memoirs? Thanks.(By the way, do agree men can be feminists, in that they can support the goals of feminism and/or women's liberation. )-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 21:08:10 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Some excellent posts! > What's the first thing people ask upon hearing of a new birth? Can you tell > me why? Because in order to begin referring to the new human, we're forced to, in order to know whether to say "he" or "she" -- or must call the new human the dehumanizing "it." I wish non-gendered pronouns would catch on in English. I'm trying to use them in my current series and I'm going to stick to my guns on this, but they definitely don't flow easily off the brain. -l. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:18:56 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: PAT MATHEWS Subject: Re: Survey for Arwen Vidal Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Pamela Large >Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & >utopian literature and other media" >To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Survey for Arwen Vidal >Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:25:07 -0700 > >This is just a quick note on the subject of who writes better female >characters, as asked in Arwen Vidal's survey. I went to a website to find >other names used by Susanne Haden Elgin, Two different people. You want Suzette Haden Elgin. and found an 'alias' for a mystery >writer I had rejected for having shallow women characters (my opinion >only). >I think the books were well written, but the women weren't. Here is the >listing and the site. > >http://www.trussel.com/books/pseud_s.htm#Scoppettone_Sandra > >Scoppettone, Sandra >[Jack Early] > >I hope this is a proper message for this list. > >Pam > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Arwen Vidal" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:22 PM >Subject: [*FSFFU*] please participate! > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 19:39:21 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <151.d4b84c9.2a034699@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:49 PM 5/2/02 -0400, Joy Martin wrote: >Where do we find the essay and what's the name of his memoirs? Thanks.(By the >way, do agree men can be feminists, in that they can support the goals of >feminism and/or women's liberation. )-Joy This seems to me like saying that cheerleaders can be football players, in that they can support the goals of the team and and may contribute to winning the game. But in fact they are not in the game and aren't allowed to participate other than as supportive bystanders. The heavy lifting is all done by the people directly involved. The memoir is The Motion of Light in Water: Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East Village, 1957-1965 It's filled with gay and bisexual sex, quite a bit of his wife's (Marilyn Hacker) poetry, and great writing. Another sort of memoir is Bread and Wine, a pornographic comic book of sorts, illustrated by Mia Wolff, that describes his first encounter with and courtship of Dennis, his long-time lover, in New York. I'm not sure about the essay on The Dispossessed, but I understand that reading that novel was what convinced Delaney to write science fiction, so it ought to be good. Indeed, his Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia, is in some way an extended response to The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia. The parallelism in the titles was intentional. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:50:06 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/2/02 9:41:17 PM Central Daylight Time, leeanne@LEEANNE.COM writes: << But in fact they are not in the game and aren't allowed to participate other than as supportive bystanders. The heavy lifting is all done by the people directly involved. >> Oh I think men are definitely in the game, since they are either part of the oppression of women or doing something to change it. If the latter, they are feminist. Of course it's quite true women bear the weight of the oppression and have to take the lead in ending it. Thanks for the info on Delaney. Triton I've read, and in my original post on the Dispossessed way back at the beginning of the month, I mentioned that I'd confused the two in my memory (or, that I'd confused a novel of his with this one, and I'm sure it was Triton).-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:57:11 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:26 AM 5/3/02 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote: >I identify myself as feminist, although I do have problems with >(some) strands of feminism. They're probably along the lines of >Gillian Rose's objections, in Love's Work, that feminism too often >focusses on women's impotence rather than their potencies. So in my >own thinking - years ago, when I had my first child and the whole >role thing hit me like a ton of bricks - it was black women writers >like Alice Walker and Audre Lord who mattered most to me. I think >because black feminists can't ignore issues like race and class as >well as sex as being agencies of oppression, and the contradictions >and complexities introduced by these other factors lead to a much >more complex picture than the binary of oppressors and oppressed. I'd agree. We live in a large number of societies and our interactions with the world are often characterised by multiple oppressions. In some cases, it's hard to say how *exactly* one is being oppressed, since race, ethnicity, religious background, sexual preference, gender, and gender expression may all be part of the equation. Not to mention physical appearance other than any or all of these. And indeed, even among women, serious criticisms have been raised by some whose basic premise is that the various feminisms are defined by white, anglo-saxon, protestant women to the exclusion of others, and ignore the common ground between *some* women and *some* men based on any or all of the other grounds of oppression and/or privilege. Indeed, the feminist movement, like all women's movements, has been characterised by divisions and disagreements rather more than monolithic unity of purpose. Women don't usually form hierarchies, and don't often submit to "authority" with the same alacrity that many men do. Trying to "lead" women is "like herding cats" as far as I can see. Which is good, I think, all in all. We have no female equivalent to either the Roman Catholic Church or the Ku Klux Klan, nor, other than in legend, large autonomous armies of women. So we find Alice Walker defining a specifically Black Feminism and renaming it Womanism. But Womanism is itself ambiguous, encompassing the feminisms of Black women and (supposedly) women of colour, a marriage uncomfortable for some women. And inherent in Walker's original definition was the idea that centuries of racial *and* gender oppression, combined with Black women's courageous response to these oppressions and their unique culture and resources, have made Womanish Black women more capable that Feminist white women, somehow "better." Now *there's* a can of worms. While this parallels the various Black Nationalist movements, it also partially precludes any possibility of cooperation and common ground between Womanism and Feminism, and implicitly ignores women of colour who may feel themselves rooted in both worlds. Like any dichotomy, this position stumbles on taxonomy, since rigid classifications don't map well onto a fluid and amorphous reality. It seems modeled on the "one drop" rule of white racist power structures, which created "artificial Negroes" out of what *appeared* to be white citizens, thereby making it possible to enslave them. And *most* Womanists, unlike Walker herself, are unwilling to confront endemic homophobia within the Black community, so that the other part of Walker's formulation, that a Womanist loves women, is ignored or swept under the rug in favour of a spurious heterosexualism. "Institutional" Womanism has yet to come to terms with the oppression of African-American lesbians within the Womanist community, and there have been no voices powerful enough to force this issue to the fore, as lesbians did in their relationship to the National Organisation of Women (NOW), compelling NOW to acknowledge that the specific oppression of lesbians *also* limited the possibilities of *every* woman's life and freedom. Womanism also ignores the fact that "women of colour" may not be in any way African-American, but may include mestizos of any race, and even Black persons whose background is *not* that of the stereotypical US experience. And in this country at least, women of colour may include Jews, American Indians, other indigenous peoples of the Americas, Pacific Islanders in infinite variety, aboriginal peoples from Australia and Tasmania, Chinese in infinite varieties, Koreans, Ainu, Japanese, Arabs, Indians (from India), and on and on. By some reckonings, Greek and Italian women may be included, perhaps Turkish or Iranian women, until the concept of "colour" grows so fuzzy that it loses real meaning. And when you consider that relations among these groups are not uniformly benign, so that an Ainu woman may be a "woman of colour" to a Japanese woman, with an historical oppression rooted in that relationship, or a "Chinese" woman from Mongolia or Tibet in relation to a Han Chinese woman, the clouds of ambiguity threaten to obscure any *possible* commonality between women. And yet, when the chips are down, all women recognise each other as profoundly similar, I think, and sharing common physical and emotional experiences that transcend (or at least bypass) all other differences. We don't find communal water closets segregated on any other criteria than sex before that basic distinction is made at any point in history that I know of. Even in the segregated South of the Fifties, an "out of order" sign on the White Ladies' Room didn't mean that the women affected went instinctively over to the White Men's Room. If "Sisterhood" is not universally recognised immediately and by all women, I think the *possibility* does exist, and perhaps grows over time, as older paradigms of "racial purity" or other distinctions blur in the younger generation. People like Tiger Woods are refusing to place themselves within the old dichotomies, choosing to embrace the rainbow rather than seeing that rainbow as black and white. And perhaps that's what Delaney is saying in his "ambiguous heterotopia." If his future world now contains dozens of "sexes" and sexual orientations; if skin colour is a fashion decision to be accessorised rather than a life-long relationship with power and society; if sex itself is mutable, most distinctions become untenable and the only remaining "otherness" is that of place. So Mars, the Earth, and the Moons of Jupiter are implacable enemies, even though separated by millions of empty miles of hard vacuum, and their conflict results in the loss of millions of lives despite the fact that they are all "the same." And Bron's pathetic attempt to place himself within the old paradigms by choosing sides rather than equilibrium is just another of his failures to understand either himself or the world he lives in. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:23:24 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's hard to believe if a participant sends signed answers via e-mail. My response will be completed soon. Dave Samuelson Arwen Vidal wrote: > Thank you for participating! Rest assured, all surveys will be kept > strictly confidential and anonymous. > > Arwen Vidal > California State University, Northridge > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness > http://health.yahoo.com > > -------------------------------------------------- > This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for > discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To > unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > > Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:08:29 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <12a.10a29557.2a0354de@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:50 PM 5/2/02 -0400, Joy Martin wrote: >Oh I think men are definitely in the game, since they are either part of the >oppression of women or doing something to change it. If the latter, they are >feminist. Of course it's quite true women bear the weight of the oppression >and have to take the lead in ending it. Male "feminists" are starting to bore me, but I can't resist one last try. Let's say that I support Black Feminism. Does that make me a Black Feminist? Or let's say that you know that I am a mestiza American Indian, as you might if you've visited my Web site, and support my own struggle with Indian rights and oppose, with me, the historical genocide perpetrated against indigenous peoples in the USA and around the world. Does that make you a member of the American Indian Movement? In fact, the answer to both questions is emphatically no. The arrogance and condescension implied in "including" a person who can, at the drop of a hat and upon mere whim, become "part of the problem" instead of "doing something to change it" is surely obvious in regard to every liberation movement *other* than the liberation movement of women, which is exactly feminism. It irritates me to hear men call themselves "feminist," just as it irritates me to hear white people usurping Indian culture and spirituality by calling themselves "Toltecs" or "Honorary Indian Shamans," or whatever the hell the latest New Age colonisation of indigenous peoples may be called. While most of the people who so demand "inclusion" are "well-meaning," perhaps even compassionate and kind, most are also quite oblivious to the fact the white people are not, in fact, Indians, and cannot partake of their future liberation or renaissance even vicariously. Liberation is not a spectator sport. Men are not women, for the most part, and cannot participate in women's liberation except as spectators or cheerleaders, cannot appreciate the fact that, as a woman, the male clerk in the hardware store feels free to condescend to me, to all women, assuming that I and my sisters are "mere" women, and place his hand on my arm, on my sister's arm. with impunity because he is free to invade our space and touch our bodies as he pleases, within only the limits bounded by sexual harassment and rape, if someone is looking. If they haven't felt the "weight of the oppression" they can't be anything *other* than cheerleaders or spectators, even if their hearts ache for the struggles of their own wives and daughters and they wish passionately to help. Men who support their wives during pregnancy and labour are not lying in and don't become mothers. Men who bring one hot water bottles and cups of tea during difficult periods are not menstruants, even if they're willing to purchase "feminine products" in the store without cringing. All men of good will have their own struggle to eliminate their own sexism and participation in patriarchal reward systems that make it possible, if not inevitable, to collectively garner more than their fair share of our common resources. A man making a dollar for every seventy cents a woman makes is not a "feminist" however cheerily he "supports" a woman's right to protest against this injustice and is "outraged" by the fact that she doesn't have the same opportunities he takes for granted. Let him put his money and employment where his mouth is and donate 30% of his salary to women's causes, retroactive to his entry into the job market, and then quit to take a "woman's job," foregoing the privilege he inherited in classroom and job market before we begin to talk about whether he is a "feminist" or not. One can't be a "feminist" and retain male privilege, and that privilege is automatic, so perhaps the only true "male feminist" is a drag queen or transitioning male to female transsexual. I might concede the latter case, although I'd have to think about it. If the possibility, however remote, of reclaiming male privilege is no longer there, and vestiges of male arrogance are gone, then I suppose so. In the meantime, let men (and women) find their own words to describe what nice men are. They *ain't* feminists until they've dealt with a masher's sweaty male hands on their butts and tits, pervasive sexual harassment and disrespect on the job, nasty comments and "jokes" about them in the media, ill-fitting vehicles and uncomfortable seat belt systems designed for the "average man," and (not least) long lines to get into the bathroom so that he *never* sees the beginning of the second act and misses at least a quarter of every football game. All men *and* women of good will have their own struggle to eliminate racism and their own participation in racist reward systems or cliques, regardless of whether they consciously participate in those systems or not. But being aware of racism or sexism doesn't make one magically into a member of the particular oppressed class, nor entitle one to name themselves as members of that class. Nor do women have the right to bestow "honorary woman" titles on men they like, however nice they are or sweet-natured. It's just as fawning and pathetic as when Indians suck up to the "Great White Father" by naming him an "Indian Chief." Why can't we just call them "nice men" and be done with it. Are we so desperate for Daddy's approval that we have to say "he's one of us" to ensure his cooperation or (at least) benign tolerance? -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:25:30 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020502212605.00a1a080@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hi Lee Anne At 11:08 PM -0700 2/5/02, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >Nor do women have the right to bestow "honorary woman" >titles on men they like, however nice they are or >sweet-natured. It's just as fawning and pathetic as when >Indians suck up to the "Great White Father" by naming him >an "Indian Chief." Why can't we just call them "nice men" >and be done with it. Are we so desperate for Daddy's approval >that we have to say "he's one of us" to ensure his cooperation >or (at least) benign tolerance? This made me think of a creepy visit from a photographer (a woman) who brought her small daughter and her husband. This man had become a total parody of a tv mother, fussing about with sweetie, bringing in the nappies, fuss fuss fuss, so thoroughly dispensing with masculinity it was - well - creepy. I sort of assumed he must have had an abusive father... well, I like my husband to be a man, that's one of the main things I enjoy about him, not some cartoon of womanhood as ideally imagined in margarine commercials. My husband is nice, but I'm not sure I'd describe him as "sweet natured". But I am not an especially sweet natured woman. I was merely attempting to say that men have as much at stake in questioning gender and sex roles as women do. True, it is harder for them to see this, given male privilege; they have to firstly become aware of it, and then dispense with it. The fact is that male privilege is crippling and blinding. And it seems to me that feminism will not get anywhere much unless it can - however uneasily and with all the necessary caveats - find a way to see itself in this other context, since most of us have fathers, brothers, lovers or sons. It's not difference that matters so much as the values attached to difference. Men and women are not the same, however much they have in common (and they have a lot in common - much more in common than me and my cat). Best Alison -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:27:57 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fair enough, but the fact that I can't experience menstrual cramps and you can's experience prostate problems does not mean we can not recognize each other's pain (and joy) or understand each other's point of view. That kind of exclusivity, also practiced by racial groups, leads to locking ourselves into the isolation that nobody can feel anybody else's anything. If we can't communicate past those barriers, why talk (live) at all? I don't see us chattering classes, however, accepting the stoic advice to just shut up and suffer. I've read and heard enough about feminism (and feminisms) even on this list not to trust anybody's one-dimensional defintion, except as it delineates the box (s)he places her/himself in. As it happens, Delany did so define himself in a couple of essays, though he has also taken the position you outline. As for Bron, Chip deliberately makes him a caricature, not only of a man but of a white man. Is Triton a fantasy? Of course. Is authenticity, male or female? Very likely. Is biology destiny? I doubt it. Dave Samuelson Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > At 12:10 PM 5/2/02 -0700, Dave Samuelson wrote: > >Thanks for the defense, Sarah. > > > >Although it is self-serving to say so, I have claimed something like feminist > >status for almost fifty years and have never tried to use it to score (my > >Calvinist upbringing must have something to do with that). I can not claim to > >be a feminist critic of fsf, any more than I can claim to be a > >poststructuralist, though some elements of both may creep into my writing. > > I have no problem whatsoever with "something like." I'm sure that of the many > hundreds of thousands of words I've written, a few of them have been something > like Hemingway, a writer I would prefer not to resemble in any way. > > But feminism has at it's heart an inner knowledge of systematic oppression > based on one's sex that I strongly suspect may feel differently from the > outside, however sensitive and aware one might be. To me, and I stress that > this is a personal feeling, men claiming to be "feminist" seems like men > claiming to know what menstrual cramps feel like, or whether they prefer > clitoral or vaginal stimulation during intercourse. While it might be > theoretically possible for this to be true, I'd like to be more certain > before I gave the idea much credence. > > While even Simon Legree has the possibility of repentance and compassion for > the slaves he previously whipped and brutalized, it hardly seems possible > for him to experience what it means to be a slave, or to understand a > slave's passion for freedom, even with the best heart and will in the world. > > That's why Simon Legree might possibly become an Abolitionist, or > even a canting hypocrite like Thomas Jefferson who admits the calculated > and callous cruelty of slavery but denies that it affects him, even as he > experiences the giddy rush of power and concupiscence that *owning* > another human being engenders. > > And he will surely never *understand* what Sojourner Truth meant and felt > like when she said, "Ain't I a woman?" > > He can at best see through a glass, darkly, know in part, not fully, just > as he himself cannot be known by any other without metaphor and > extrapolative inference. > > Extrapolation isn't all that reliable when it comes to inner feelings. > One doesn't know what it feels like to birth a child until one does it. > All the imagination in the world won't help you. Metaphor can > only carry one so far until it runs up against the wall of solipsism. > > > I > >would defend Samuel R. Delany's feminist credentials, however, as both writer > >and critic; as a gay man, moreover, he can hardly be suspected of posing that > >way to pick up chicks. > > I would agree that Delaney has made a conscious effort to envisage a world > free of racism, homophobia, and sexism in future societies. But I'd doubt that > he would describe himself as a feminist. In fact, he uses Triton > as a vehicle to burst the bubble of "male feminists" by portraying his > "feminist" protagonist as an essentially pathetic loser and poseur. Even in > a world where people change sex like mood rings, the authentic characters > who swirl around the main character are both consistent and revealing in > their freedom from limiting labels or stereotypes. Indeed, in Delaney's > truly post-feminist world Bron's insistence on discovering (and enabling) > "authentic" masculinity by *becoming* an "authentic" female is > anachronistic and doomed to failure. > > Elvis has left the building. Gender and sexuality is fashion and fad on > Triton, not an innate destiny, and represents a sort of artistic > self-expression rather than a basis for human relations. So Bron's "I am > woman, hear me roar" is profoundly silly as he lives out his fantasy of > understanding what women really want, and what men really need. > He's disconnected and inauthentic, even with himself, and can't even > eliminate his own malaise and ennui in the midst of war and terror. > > In fact, Bron reminds me of a sad character from Ann Bannon's novels > of lesbian life in the Sixties stuck on a madcap Merry Prankster > tour of the Entire Universe. People are having great sex and great > relationships all around him while he drifts in a hermetically-sealed bubble > of wistful longing. > > -------------------------------------------------- > This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for > discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To > unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > > Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205030124.173vy55wY3NkYBY0@hazard.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > >At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: >>I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters >>qualify the work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction >>"feminist" as opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my >>case "Lesbian". ;) > >I happen to think that there is no such animal as a >male "feminist," despite the fact that at least some men believe >something along those lines, but this is personal prejudice, since >most of the men I've noticed that profess this position seem also to >possess a fond hope that this will help them score. Clearly not all of them do this for self serving reasons (ie I most certainly don't). In addition to finding this idea personally offensive, it also seems rather narrow and unlikely. For me, feminism is rather a position held by any person with non-corrupt morals and ethics. >There seems to be some support for this position in the literature, >since it is important to be able to identify the standpoint of an >individual professing a given position so that one can determine >whether the speaker is on the outside looking in or on the inside >looking around. This is the difference between a "lesbian" and a >"supportive" person who believes in the freedom to express one's >sexuality as one is moved to. PFLAG members are, for the most >part, neither lesbians nor gay men and it muddies thought if we >have people appropriating terms of discourse for political or >sentimental reasons. > >So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and >worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar >vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by >their roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary >virtues that women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) >is not, in fact, a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- >identified or brainwashed. > For me, a feminist is anyone who believes that in a just society sex and gender should not determine what rights and responsibilities that citizens possess *and* that that standards of thought and behavior based upon gender should be abolished, so that people are allowed to freely pursue their interests, work in a professions, and express themselves emotionally based solely upon their own nature w/o regards to sex or gender. Our current norms of behavior oppress *both* men and women (although women most definitely bear the brunt of economic oppression), it seems not at all unreasonable that an individuals sex and gender are irrelevant to whether or not they are a feminist. Feminism doesn't just deal with the role of women it addresses injustices in the structure of gender and sexuality in a society. These issues are of concern to *all* people in the society, regardless of what their sex or gender might be. Our current social system harms most people, not just women. Even by your definition, it seems only reasonable that anyone who is directly harmed by the current gender norms is (assuming that they oppose and work against those norms) is eligible for the label of feminist. I may be biologically male, but I most certainly have been harmed by the current system of gender norms. Being a women is most certainly problematic in many situations, but so is being a somewhat feminine male, and the reasons for both sorts of problems are *identical* (male people and stereotypically male behaviors are consider superior to female people and stereotypically female behaviors). -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205030124.173vy55wY3NkYBY0@hazard.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Melissa Bowersock wrote: > I absolutely agree with you here, and lay that blame totally on the > society we've created. If we didn't have such narrow stereotypes for > either male or female, maybe more children would be comfortable just > growing up as they felt guided internally, instead of forcing > themselves to fit a mold. And it's terribly hard to fight that > cultural overlay. When my grandkids were born, I was determined to > never give them gender-specific toys, and was just as apt to give my > granddaughter a dinosaur as a doll, or my grandson a stuffed animal as > a car. Funny thing was (to my chagrin), my granddaughter *loves* > Barbies and my grandson loves cars, trucks and heavy machinery. > Granted, they have not been free of their parents' influence, who are > as much a product of the culture as anyone, Also, unless they live in a fairly unusual and highly isolated household, they are also exposed to the greatest force for acculturation we currently possess: television - where young girls are taught that they *must* have barbie dolls to be socially acceptable and young boys are similarly taught that trucks and similar toys are socially acceptable and barbie dolls are not. As I see it, the only way to change the current system of gender- based oppression is to change to entire culture, including marketing to television programming. We have most certainly come a long way wrt media compared to what I remember of growing up in the late 1960s, but we also have a long way to go. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205030124.173vy55wY3NkYBY0@hazard.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > > At 01:06 PM 5/2/02 -0500, you wrote: > >Have not. From your description, not sure I want to. After reading > >The Moon Under Her Feet, I was expecting so much more from Scorcese's > >Temptation of Christ and got sorely disappointed. Would the Jehovah > >Contract start the wheels turning, or just p*ss me off? > > What happens is strange sort of redemption, with Los > Angeles reclaiming it's original name, the City of Our > Lady, the Queen of the Angels, and Ammo being > rescued not only from death, but possibly from the > existential futility of his former life. > > It's an interesting work, and by no means perfect, but > possibly worth reading for the sheer novelty of the conceit. Agreed, I read this book many years ago and loved it. Reading your comments make me want to reread it again. It is most certainly worth reading once. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205030124.173vy55wY3NkYBY0@hazard.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Laura J. Mixon" wrote: > I wish non-gendered pronouns would catch on in English. I'm trying to > use them in my current series and I'm going to stick to my guns on > this, but they definitely don't flow easily off the brain. Congrats, I look forward to seeing it. "They" works quite well for me as a non-gendered pronoun, but I know a number of people don't like it. That reminds me, has anyone else here ever read a little known novel by Phyllis Ann Karr _At Amberleaf Fair_? It was an interesting and remarkably humane fantasy novel involving a criminal investigation at a great trade fair. The most wonderful part was that one of the main characters is not given a gender. I noticed this fact about a third of the way through the novel and reread it carefully, and there wasn't a single pronoun or other indicator. This is done very subtlely, and I loved it. I've always been curious as to how many other readers noticed this fact. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205030124.173vy55wY3NkYBY0@hazard.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Melissa Bowersock wrote: > > At 09:09 PM 5/1/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >At 09:56 PM 5/1/02 -0500, *~Rain~* wrote: > >>I guess my question: Does exploring the sexuality of characters > >>qualify the work as feminist? What makes a piece of science fiction > >>"feminist" as opposed to "having strong female characters" or in my > >>case "Lesbian". ;) > > > >So I would prefer to name men who believe in the equality and > >worth of women "egalitarian" rather than "feminist." In a similar > >vein, I think a woman who believes that women are defined by their > >roles in relation to men, or that men posses the primary virtues that > >women can only imitate or envy (e.g. Camille Paglia) is not, in fact, > >a masculinist or a male chauvinist but rather male- identified or > >brainwashed. > > > > I think you've hit on a two-edged sword here, which for me has always > been the issue: men and women are equal in that they both deserve > respect, basic human rights, opportunity to reach their potential, yet > they are by nature intrinsically different > (physically/mentally/emotionally) and deserve to be recognized and > responded to for their unique attributes. How does one maintain that > balance, treating them alike, yet differently? It's a bit like having > 2 children, one "perfect child" who does everything a parent would > want and one "troubled child" who gets into a jam at every turn. (NO > correlation between men/women and perfect/troubled!!) They are equal > in that they are both your children, yet they require very different > responses. When I read authors that can keep close to that balance, > recognizing the equality yet recognizing the differences, they've got > me solidly in their court. I think Anne McCaffrey does a good job at > that, even in the patriarchal society of Pern. Interesting, in contrast, I find McCaffrey to be one of the most limited authors I know of wrt gender (only slightly better than Heinlein). In my PoV, she has remarkably limited notions of human behavior and almost all of her sympathetic male characters act in a stereotypically masculine manner while almost all of her sympathetic female characters are stereotypically feminine. In her better books, such behaviors are not horridly offensive, but the implication is that psychologically men and women differ in many fundamental ways. I do not believe this to be true and object to this sort of essentialism. I imagine my objection to McCaffrey in essence comes down to the fact that I object to any sort of separate but equal treatment of sex and gender issues, in large part because like Sarah Young, I also find a simply binary model of sex and gender to be *far* too limited, and my reading as an anthropologist has firmly convinced me that there are no behaviors or emotional reactions that belong solely to one sex or gender. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 06:00:51 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Male 'feminists'? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b6.af5b3d1.2a03b9d3_boundary" --part1_b6.af5b3d1.2a03b9d3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I prefer men to term themselves 'pro-feminist' as I think the centre of feminism is the women's liberation movement... which like AIM etc. needs a degree of separatism in its application. Thus I also prefer to call the Robert Bly-esque 'Men's movement' the Min's movement [can't remember who came up with that first]... which has parallels in the UK at the moment with the far-right arguing that they are no longer racist... merely that Black people have taken their liberation too far and are no 'oppressing' whites. In Sci-Fi my favourite society is Mattapoisett in Woman on the edge of time - here the whole society has become feminist [and anti-racist etc. etc.] but these folk are still big on their history and very much value the women's struggle that got them there ByeBye Rachel --part1_b6.af5b3d1.2a03b9d3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

I prefer men to term themselves 'pro-feminist' as I think the centre of feminism is the women's liberation movement... which like AIM etc. needs a degree of separatism in its application.

Thus I also prefer to call the Robert Bly-esque 'Men's movement' the Min's movement [can't remember who came up with that first]... which has parallels in the UK at the moment with the far-right arguing that they are no longer racist... merely that Black people have taken their liberation too far and are no 'oppressing' whites.

In Sci-Fi my favourite society is Mattapoisett in Woman on the edge of time - here the whole society has become feminist [and anti-racist etc. etc.] but these folk are still big on their history and very much value the women's struggle that got them there

ByeBye
Rachel --part1_b6.af5b3d1.2a03b9d3_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 08:00:34 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Male 'feminism' Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11c.109362e8.2a03d5e2_boundary" --part1_11c.109362e8.2a03d5e2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, John wrote: Feminism doesn't just deal with the role of women it addresses injustices in the structure of gender and sexuality in a society. These issues are of concern to *all* people in the society, regardless of what their sex or gender might be. Our current social system harms most people, not just women. Of course this is true - but I do question when men on the list wish to prioritise arguing with women about who feminism addresses. There is an obvious distinction between whom a particular system affects [holistically... all beings on this...or other... planet] and whom is directly a recipient of oppression. Therefore I just consider it plain *bad manners* for men to get into arguing this way with women when they could be off changing this system. John says that he finds leeanne's description of new-men using feminism for their own ends 'personally offensive' - I just think pro-feminist men would be better listening to women's descriptions of their experience than being offended. I'd also like to bring this discussion back on topic as we seem to be challenging women's definitions of feminism more than I'm happy with. What could we find in Feminist Sci-Fi about separatism, support, autonomy, resistance, gender etc. to extrapolate different outcomes from? ByeBye [a little incoherently I feel] Rachel --part1_11c.109362e8.2a03d5e2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello,

John wrote:
Feminism doesn't just deal with the role of women it addresses
injustices in the structure of gender and sexuality in a society.
These issues are of concern to *all* people in the society,
regardless of what their sex or gender might be.  Our current social
system harms most people, not just women.

Of course this is true -  but I do question when men on the list wish to prioritise arguing with women about who feminism addresses.
There is an obvious distinction between whom a particular system affects [holistically... all beings on this...or other... planet] and whom is directly a recipient of oppression.
Therefore I just consider it plain *bad manners* for men to get into arguing this way with women when they could be off changing this system.

John says that he finds leeanne's description of new-men using feminism for their own ends 'personally offensive' - I just think pro-feminist men would be better listening to women's descriptions of their experience than being offended.

I'd also like to bring this discussion back on topic as we seem to be challenging women's definitions of feminism more than I'm happy with.

What could we find in Feminist Sci-Fi about separatism, support, autonomy, resistance, gender etc. to extrapolate different outcomes from?

ByeBye [a little incoherently I feel]
Rachel --part1_11c.109362e8.2a03d5e2_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 06:52:12 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sandy Cronin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Also, unless they live in a fairly unusual and highly isolated > household, they are also exposed to the greatest force for > acculturation we currently possess: television - where young girls > are taught that they *must* have barbie dolls to be socially > acceptable and young boys are similarly taught that trucks and > similar toys are socially acceptable and barbie dolls are not. Which is yet another reason I feel fortunate to have grown up when I did, with the parents I had. We only got about 5 TV channels, and that was normal (this was just slightly before cable was widespread), and my own parents were involved enough to prevent me from watching MOST commercial television until I was about 10 or so (I did watch quite a bit of PBS, though). Never owned a barbie my whole life, and never wanted one, and, thanks to the fact that our household was NOT "highly unusual" for that time and place, neither did any of my closest friends. We had stuffed animals and legos and lincoln logs and playmobil sets and tonka trucks instead. :) -Sandy -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:45:13 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <177.7b6d634.2a033301@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" In a message dated 5/2/02 1:06:46 PM Central Daylight Time, mjb@NOAO.EDU writes: Since leaving home, she seems to have reverted to the stereotypical wife and mother and appears to be happy in that, so I must at this point butt out. Still rankles, tho. Consoling thought #1 Kids usually retain their parents values, though they may be their parents' age before it surfaces. Consoling thought #2 You taught her she could be anything. It's her choice what that anything looks like. You are dead on here, to my chagrin. When I taught her she could be anything, I did not have a housewife in mind, but if we're going to throw open the gates and give children the latitude to be whatever satisfies them, we have to recognize that they may choose something we wouldn't. She's home all day, does Brownies, Gymboree and Mom's Club, all stuff that would drive me batsh*t, but she loves it. All I can do is support the fact that she's happy in it. Consoling thought #3: One hopes that when your granddaughter comes out as a feminist dyke, your daughter will be supportive. If I've done my job well, that would be the case. If not--at least Granny will be supportive. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net Lou, feminist bi mom who dreamed of raising smart, strong grrls....now struggling to raise smart, sensitive boys...... PS, re the comment about Heinlein. I retain a fondness for him, despite his dickheadness. He did pretty good for a guy writing in the first half of the last century. He's like the old uncle who you disagree with about just about everything, but still love none the less. L .. And don't worry about the world coming to an end today, it's already tomorrow in Australia. ---- Charles Schultz <<<<<<<< -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:59:51 -0400 Reply-To: judithberman@earthlink.net Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Judith Berman Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another book where a main character's gender is entirely concealed (until the end of the book) is Connie Willis' UNCHARTED TERRITORY -- I think that's the correct title. It would be giving away too much say anything in detail. The end result, though, is actually to reinforce gender rather than undermine or neutralize it. What is interesting is how she conceals it -- the assumptions *she* assumes the reader will bring to the story, and how she manipulates those. She got around the pronoun issue completely. I wonder if she would have been as successful with this reader (who saw it coming, but not as soon as I ultimately felt I should have) if I had not been aware of the author's gender. Judith > >That reminds me, has anyone else here ever read a little known >novel by Phyllis Ann Karr _At Amberleaf Fair_? It was an >interesting and remarkably humane fantasy novel involving a >criminal investigation at a great trade fair. The most wonderful part >was that one of the main characters is not given a gender. I noticed >this fact about a third of the way through the novel and reread it >carefully, and there wasn't a single pronoun or other indicator. This >is done very subtlely, and I loved it. I've always been curious as to >how many other readers noticed this fact. > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:13:12 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sarah Young Subject: Re: Male 'feminism' Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Rachel Wild > > Hello, > >John wrote: >Feminism doesn't just deal with the role of women it addresses >injustices in the structure of gender and sexuality in a society. >These issues are of concern to *all* people in the society, >regardless of what their sex or gender might be. Our current social >system harms most people, not just women. > >Of course this is true - but I do question when men on the list wish to >prioritise arguing with women about who feminism addresses. This really bothers me. This has been, in my opinion, a good and polite discussion. Pulling the "you're a guy, so shut up" card strikes me as a very problematic end to it. Without the ability to talk to each other, to struggle with difficult issues, and to be challenged, I believe we fail to grow. --Sarah (disappointed) _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:39:17 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Priscilla H. Ballou" Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Snead wrote: > Even by your definition, it seems only reasonable that anyone who > is directly harmed by the current gender norms is (assuming that > they oppose and work against those norms) is eligible for the label > of feminist. I may be biologically male, but I most certainly have > been harmed by the current system of gender norms. Being a > women is most certainly problematic in many situations, but so is > being a somewhat feminine male, and the reasons for both sorts of > problems are *identical* (male people and stereotypically male > behaviors are consider superior to female people and > stereotypically female behaviors). I most certainly agree with this. I have a mentor who is a feminist man, and I am learning a lot from him about living in this world while combating "power over" structures. BTW, hello! I have been lurking on the list for about a week I guess. I'm a denizen of RASSF, a middle-aged white bi woman in Boston, MA. (I used to identify as lesbian, but then my karma ran over my dogma.) Priscilla -- "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:14:44 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Male 'feminism' Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:13 AM 5/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: >>From: Rachel Wild >> >> Hello, >> >>John wrote: >>Feminism doesn't just deal with the role of women it addresses >>injustices in the structure of gender and sexuality in a society. >>These issues are of concern to *all* people in the society, >>regardless of what their sex or gender might be. Our current social >>system harms most people, not just women. >> >>Of course this is true - but I do question when men on the list wish to >>prioritise arguing with women about who feminism addresses. > >This really bothers me. This has been, in my opinion, a good and polite >discussion. Pulling the "you're a guy, so shut up" card strikes me as a >very problematic end to it. Without the ability to talk to each other, to >struggle with difficult issues, and to be challenged, I believe we fail to >grow. > >--Sarah (disappointed) It seems to me that we all face the same issue, a restriction of our potential dictated by cultural standards and stereotypes, even tho the details of the struggle are different for men and women, as they are from individual to individual. (There's that dichotomy again--same overarching issue with different details.) I see feminism as a description of women's struggle, but then what do we call men's struggle?--masculinism? (Time for a new listserv?) I have a friend who's a New Warrier, a spinoff of Robert Bly's Iron John-ism, and he said one aspect of it is to explore how men can open up to and learn to be nurturing and sensitive. He admits they have borrowed from the modeling of women but said that, in the final analysis, they must learn to do it on their own, as men, not sitting at the feet of women. Likewise corporate women of the 80's and 90's tried the route of "becoming men" in order to play the game and found that unsatisfying as well and have taken off in a new direction. I believe we can all support each other in our separate struggles against the cultural stereotyping, but ultimately we must each define our own goal and how we will get there. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:29:49 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I imagine my objection to McCaffrey in essence comes down to the >fact that I object to any sort of separate but equal treatment of sex >and gender issues, in large part because like Sarah Young, I also >find a simply binary model of sex and gender to be *far* too limited, >and my reading as an anthropologist has firmly convinced me that >there are no behaviors or emotional reactions that belong solely to >one sex or gender. >-John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com I agree that there are no behaviors or emotional reactions that belong *solely* to one sex or gender, however I am beginning to wonder if we are arguing nature vs. nurture here. Some of what I'm hearing almost sounds to me as if folks believe we are born blank slates and we only acquire imprints from our culture. Am I hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and nurture. >Also, unless they live in a fairly unusual and highly isolated >household, they are also exposed to the greatest force for >acculturation we currently possess: television - where young girls >are taught that they *must* have barbie dolls to be socially >acceptable and young boys are similarly taught that trucks and >similar toys are socially acceptable and barbie dolls are not. > >As I see it, the only way to change the current system of gender- >based oppression is to change to entire culture, including >marketing to television programming. We have most certainly >come a long way wrt media compared to what I remember of >growing up in the late 1960s, but we also have a long way to go. >-John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com Ain't that the truth? Until people quit hunkering down and watching Survivor or The Bachelor and thinking that's entertainment and/or enlightenment, we'll continue listing along in our leaky ship. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:38:33 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: FSFFU list member to appear on nationwide television; apathy sweeps movement!` Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case anybody isn't busy that afternoon: The episode of the game show WIN BEN STEIN'S MONEY on which I appeared in an effort to take him up on his kind offer, will air next Monday at 5 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 4 p.m. Central, on the cable channel Comedy Central. If you don't know why they call me "Orange Mike", this show will clarify it for you. I must apologize for the casual vulgarity and somewhat adolescent attitude of the show (not as bad as THE MAN SHOW); I just wanted the money. -- "Orange Mike" Lowrey -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:04:35 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sandy Cronin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020503093027.02ceb7a0@orion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I agree that there are no behaviors or emotional > reactions that belong > *solely* to one sex or gender, however I am > beginning to wonder if we are > arguing nature vs. nurture here. Some of what I'm > hearing almost sounds to > me as if folks believe we are born blank slates and > we only acquire > imprints from our culture. Am I hearing that > correctly, or no? I spent some > time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now > backed down to more of a > 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature > and nurture. I don't think the objections are to "nature" in general per se, more to the LINKING of various "nature" elements that, granted, often exist together, but don't HAVE to be linked. Female=empathetic, for instance. Male=has mechanical aptitude, for another. I don't doubt that a strong empathy might be more due to nature than nurture, but I object to the linking of that attribute to the presence of a vagina, and the marginalization of those people who have one or the other (vagina or empathy) but not both. They might coexist more often than not, but a majority does NOT a justifiable generalization make. Just my $.02 :) -Sandy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:45:59 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <20020503170435.80664.qmail@web11905.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:04 AM 5/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: >> I agree that there are no behaviors or emotional >> reactions that belong >> *solely* to one sex or gender, however I am >> beginning to wonder if we are >> arguing nature vs. nurture here. Some of what I'm >> hearing almost sounds to >> me as if folks believe we are born blank slates and >> we only acquire >> imprints from our culture. Am I hearing that >> correctly, or no? I spent some >> time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now >> backed down to more of a >> 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature >> and nurture. > >I don't think the objections are to "nature" in >general per se, more to the LINKING of various >"nature" elements that, granted, often exist together, >but don't HAVE to be linked. Female=empathetic, for >instance. Male=has mechanical aptitude, for another. >I don't doubt that a strong empathy might be more due >to nature than nurture, but I object to the linking of >that attribute to the presence of a vagina, and the >marginalization of those people who have one or the >other (vagina or empathy) but not both. They might >coexist more often than not, but a majority does NOT a >justifiable generalization make. > >Just my $.02 :) > > -Sandy Ah, got it. Thanks for clarifying. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness >http://health.yahoo.com > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:23:47 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: Male 'feminism' Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020503091521.02ceb7a0@orion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A 'feminist man' by any other name would smell as sweet. I'm not sure that the name is as important as the smell. But I have always thought it was women's call whom to label 'feminist.' Yes, men are hurt by the culture too, but that word has to belong to women. How can a 'feminist man' claim ownership of that of all words? It's like my dilemma when I was a religious teenager and wanted to be a saint: merely wanting to be, let alone claiming to be, was a sure disqualifier. This issue has come up for me recently in a practical way. I am having my sf novels republished at the moment. I am 100% hopeless at marketing them. The first, huge paperback publisher put them out with overtly anti-feminist messages in the blurbs - I almost died. There went my intended audience at one swoop. I was in favor of using the word 'feminist' in some way or other to describe the novels this time around, now they are being put out by a small press and I have some influence in the decisions. But I couldn't work out how to do it. 'Pro-feminist' sounds patronizing. In fact, if you think about it, just about any claim by a man of that kind can sound patronizing. Ah! Got it! What I need is some high-profile feminist, who doesn't mind bestowing the word on certain saintly men, to call them feminist novels - then I'm off the hook... It'll be her fault, not mine. Dave web page: www.davidbelden.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 18:49:47 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 1:11:08 AM Central Daylight Time, leeanne@LEEANNE.COM writes: << Let's say that I support Black Feminism. Does that make me a Black Feminist? Or let's say that you know that I am a mestiza American Indian, as you might if you've visited my Web site, and support my own struggle with Indian rights and oppose, with me, the historical genocide perpetrated against indigenous peoples in the USA and around the world. Does that make you a member of the American Indian Movement? >> Look, I can be a member of the civil rights movement and be white or black. I can be a member of the feminist movement and be male or female. A lot depends on what the goals of a movement are, and if the American Indian Movement wants to say only American Indians can be in it, that's fine with me. But that's really a matter of national definition or ethnic definition in a way that civil rights and feminism have not been defined. That's not to say that some people don't want to further divide off, such as black power movements or various separatists women's groups.As far as political organizing goes, there was and to some extent still is a strong case to be made for the principle of "separating to integrate" as it used to be defined. That is, the goal is full integration of women or blacks, say, into society, but a strategy to get there is to separate in terms of political organizing, in order to take control of the direction of the movement. Certainly legitimate. But it's not the only strategy and not everyone is going to use it or should use it. Saying that men can be feminist does not mean agreeing that men experience oppression in the same way women do. It does not mean that men have somehow waved a magic wand and forgone their male privilege, anymore than a white person who is a member of the civil rights movement can magically lose their white privilege. It does not mean that they are 'honorary women' or 'honorary blacks'. Those are straw dogs, saying that someone is claiming that who says they are a member of a movement.Anyone who says they are a member of the feminist movement or a member of the civil rights movement,is taking a political position. But it's fine with me if you don't want to call men feminist. People will call themselves what they please, and either act accordingly or not. In terms of building a movement, I prefer people to acknowledge their feminism rather than hide it, but most important is what they do, not what they say. I've seen people spend years and years debating whether this group or that, or this person or that, is 'really' feminist, and except where it has some strategic utility , it's a lot of hot air about nothing, IMO, and doesn't do a damn thing for feminism except keep us spinning in little circles, splintering in little groups, and getting nowhere fast in terms of making change. Feminism has been a very diverse movement, with lots of wings and subdivisions, and that's fine, that's a strength, as long as people keep their eye, as they say, on the prize. Fulminating about whether men have a right to align themselves with us or not, is , well, ...such a waste of time. If they are being antifeminists in disguise as feminists, by all means, expose them. Or ignore them. But any movement worth it's salt will take allies and members and support where they can get them, as long as they actually are allies and members and supportive, and not in fact acting against our interests. What matters is whether they are doing what they say,are they with us and acting in our interest, not, what name they are calling themselves.-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:00:17 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <115.10f98bd3.2a046e0b@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 6:49 PM -0400 3/5/02, Joy Martin wrote: >But it's fine with me if you don't want to call men feminist. People will >call themselves what they please, and either act accordingly or not. In terms >of building a movement, I prefer people to acknowledge their feminism rather >than hide it, but most important is what they do, not what they say. I've >seen people spend years and years debating whether this group or that, or >this person or that, is 'really' feminist, and except where it has some >strategic utility , it's a lot of hot air about nothing, IMO, and doesn't do >a damn thing for feminism except keep us spinning in little circles, >splintering in little groups, and getting nowhere fast in terms of making >change. Yup. My husband, a playwright, once had a play read by a feminist group, which was under the (unsought) misapprehension that it was written by Danielle, not Daniel. They were very upset when they found out he was a man, and it led to the ridiculous situation where he was forbidden to be present at a reading of his own play because he was male. That kind of idiocy is as bigoted as as misogyny, and ultimately just as destructive. Best Alison -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:12:35 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_91.1c72aa9d.2a047363_boundary" --part1_91.1c72aa9d.2a047363_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 9:46:06 AM Central Daylight Time, mjb@NOAO.EDU writes: > Brownies, Gymboree and Mom's Club, all stuff > that would drive me batsh*t, Me too, gag! But my partner and I have had to get involved with the school and now we're considered 'good' parents for showing up all the time, even though we're usually protesting, complaining, admonishing..... Lou --part1_91.1c72aa9d.2a047363_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 9:46:06 AM Central Daylight Time, mjb@NOAO.EDU writes:


Brownies, Gymboree and Mom's Club, all stuff
that would drive me batsh*t,


Me too, gag! But my partner and I have had to get involved with the school and now we're considered 'good' parents for showing up all the time, even though we're usually protesting, complaining, admonishing.....

Lou
--part1_91.1c72aa9d.2a047363_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:19:29 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: WLM and men Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_145.df47b55.2a047501_boundary" --part1_145.df47b55.2a047501_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi everyone [men included...[smile]] I'm well aware that this list is open to all genders and did not wish to pull a "you're a man so shut up"... so my apologies to those disappointed with my response. Yet I did want to state my feelings about the role of 'others' in any liberation movement. I thought many of Leeanne's points about the ethos of autonomy in liberation movements were well made ... and I find postings on the net actions in the real world as much as any other sort of interchange and so I do *react* to what is said. I have found it useful in my work around anti-discrimination to explore my personal responses when I cannot be a member of a movement I admire/ support/ learn from. I think it is an interesting dichotomy that to successfully 'transcend' [for want of a better word] a social construction like 'race' or 'gender' (?) it seems like people have to pull in the opposite direction for a [long?] time and organise around the very category they want to change. I got quite a lot from this theory I came across that says social constructs *solidify* and become so ingrained they become to seem 'natural' to people living them ... so whilst you can theorise your way into a new imagining of the future you have to live out a kind of heightened reality [perhaps through some sort of separatism] to get to a place where your reality becomes *practically* very different. I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides were much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a white anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and queer] are so soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... it is so personally ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, can't endure breaking this loop in the totality of our lives. She thought you could more easily be a fervent white anti-racist and then go home to an inner world where you didn't have to change very much... and that this is harder with feminism. I've not concluded if I think she is right or not - but I thought it worth thinking about. How do we get past this one? In Suzzette Elgin's 'Native tongue' the linguist women ... when they make the final leap and start to teach Ladan to the kids... believe that this alone will create a break in the perceptual loop [I'm more sceptical]. In 'Door into Ocean' the main male character [I forget his name] becomes 'feminist'... in this context fully adult... by living in a one gender society. [interestingly because of his class he cannot go back and forth between the invading elite like Nissi the Deciever does]... In 'Walk to the ends of the world/ motherlines' we have simultaneously two sets of women in contrast - the recently-free and the free-for-generations who live their gender very differently. Does anyone know of books where there is a narrative about male gender-oppression refusniks? [there are the Gentles in 'the Wanderground' but they are just a bit mythical] ByeBye Being more polite [smile] Rachel --part1_145.df47b55.2a047501_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi everyone [men included...[smile]]

I'm well aware that this list is open to all genders and did not wish to pull a "you're a man so shut up"... so my apologies to those disappointed with my response.
Yet I did want to state my feelings about the role of 'others' in any liberation movement. I thought many of Leeanne's points about the ethos of autonomy in liberation movements were well made ... and I find postings on the net actions in the real world as much as any other sort of interchange and so I do *react* to what is said.
I have found it useful in my work around anti-discrimination to explore my personal responses when I cannot be a member of a movement I admire/ support/ learn from.

I think it is an interesting dichotomy that to successfully 'transcend' [for want of a better word] a social construction like 'race' or 'gender' (?) it seems like people have to pull in the opposite direction for a [long?] time and organise around the very category they want to change. I got quite a lot from this theory I came across that says social constructs *solidify* and become so ingrained they become to seem 'natural' to people living them ... so whilst you can theorise your way into a new imagining of the future you have to live out a kind of heightened reality [perhaps through some sort of separatism] to get to a place where your reality becomes *practically* very different.

I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides were much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a white anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and queer] are so soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... it is so personally ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, can't endure breaking this loop in the totality of our lives. She thought you could more easily be a fervent white anti-racist and then go home to an inner world where you didn't have to change very much... and that this is harder with feminism.

I've not concluded if I think she is right or not - but I thought it worth thinking about.

How do we get past this one? In Suzzette Elgin's 'Native tongue' the linguist women ... when they make the final leap and start to teach Ladan to the kids... believe that this alone will create a break in the perceptual loop [I'm more sceptical]. In 'Door into Ocean' the main male character [I forget his name] becomes 'feminist'... in this context fully adult... by living in a one gender society. [interestingly because of his class he cannot go back and forth between the invading elite like Nissi the Deciever does]... In 'Walk to the ends of the world/ motherlines' we have simultaneously two sets of women in contrast - the recently-free and the free-for-generations who live their gender very differently. Does anyone know of books where there is a narrative about male gender-oppression refusniks? [there are the Gentles in 'the Wanderground' but they are just a bit mythical]

ByeBye
Being more polite [smile]
Rachel --part1_145.df47b55.2a047501_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:20:06 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 6:00:32 PM Central Daylight Time, acroggon@BIGPOND.COM writes: << My husband, a playwright, once had a play read by a feminist group, which was under the (unsought) misapprehension that it was written by Danielle, not Daniel. They were very upset when they found out he was a man, and it led to the ridiculous situation where he was forbidden to be present at a reading of his own play because he was male. That kind of idiocy is as bigoted as as misogyny, and ultimately just as destructive. >> And I would have to painfully say that even though in principle I'd say those women do have the right to exclude whoever they want from a reading, one has to wonder why read the play, if they think the author must be excluded? If the play is of value, ...oh well... you know, I don't know what to say. A 'reading' could be something that people want to be all female. Fair enough. But it does still seem pretty contradictory, then, to admit the ideas of the play, but not the author.-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:41:31 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: nature/nurture Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_121.106036b7.2a047a2b_boundary" --part1_121.106036b7.2a047a2b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mellisa asked... Am I hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and nurture. Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of you will have noticed the recent upsurge in theories like 'why men can't iron' basically a big upswing in biological determinism. A lot of the new determinism uses endrochronology - the study of hormones, pheromones etc. and theories of 'brain sex'. I came across this study [now lost to me] from feminist endrochronologists who proposed that behaviour determines nature [i.e. hormonal response]. The example being that carrying out a sexual assault may raise men's testosterone levels ... rather that testosterone making this behaviour more likely. This blew me away! ... I certainly notice my own hormonal levels changing according to my circumstances and environment ... my suspicion is that nature/nurture are in some kind of eternal feedback loop...but I'm unsure of genetic influence [for I fear centuries of sexual selection of passive and tiny mates for alpha males will have left women in a hopeless position ... but don't seem to have observed it among the strapping lasses of Lancashire] ByeBye Rachel --part1_121.106036b7.2a047a2b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mellisa asked...
Am I hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some
time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a
50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and nurture.

Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of you will have noticed the recent upsurge in theories like 'why men can't iron' basically a big upswing in biological determinism. A lot of the new determinism uses endrochronology - the study of hormones, pheromones etc. and theories of 'brain sex'.

I came across this study [now lost to me] from feminist endrochronologists who proposed that behaviour determines nature [i.e. hormonal response]. The example being that carrying out a sexual assault may raise men's testosterone levels ... rather that testosterone making this behaviour more likely. This blew me away! ... I certainly notice my own hormonal levels changing according to my circumstances and environment ... my suspicion is that nature/nurture are in some kind of eternal feedback loop...but I'm unsure of genetic influence [for I fear centuries of sexual selection of passive and tiny mates for alpha males will have left women in a hopeless position ... but don't seem to have observed it among the strapping lasses of Lancashire]

ByeBye
Rachel


--part1_121.106036b7.2a047a2b_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 20:03:49 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_117.11039e0c.2a047f65_boundary" --part1_117.11039e0c.2a047f65_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 6:20:01 PM Central Daylight Time, Wildseed13@AOL.COM writes: > I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides were > much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a white > anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and queer] are so > soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... it is so personally > ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, can't endure breaking this > loop in the totality of our lives. She thought you could more easily be a > fervent white anti-racist and then go home to an inner world where you > didn't have to change very much... and that this is harder with feminism. > > I've not concluded if I think she is right or not - but I thought it worth > thinking about. > > I recommend discussions of gender by people who have spent time, sometimes all of their lives, crossing or blurring the lines. Intersexed, transgendered and bisexual people have been examining these issues and writing insightful commentary. I can go ransack my library if anyone needs some suggestions to start. The duality of gender is a social construct as well. Lou ... And don't worry about the world coming to an end today, it's already tomorrow in Australia. ---- Charles Schultz --part1_117.11039e0c.2a047f65_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 6:20:01 PM Central Daylight Time, Wildseed13@AOL.COM writes:


I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides were much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a white anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and queer] are so soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... it is so personally ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, can't endure breaking this loop in the totality of our lives. She thought you could more easily be a fervent white anti-racist and then go home to an inner world where you didn't have to change very much... and that this is harder with feminism.

I've not concluded if I think she is right or not - but I thought it worth thinking about.



I recommend discussions of gender by people who have spent time, sometimes all of their lives, crossing or blurring the lines. Intersexed, transgendered and bisexual people have been examining these issues and writing insightful commentary. I can go ransack my library if anyone needs some suggestions to start.

The duality of gender is a social construct as well.

Lou

... And don't worry about the world coming to an end today,  it's already tomorrow in Australia.
---- Charles Schultz
--part1_117.11039e0c.2a047f65_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:57:38 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 5/3/02 5:03 AM, John Snead at sneadj@MINDSPRING.COM wrote: > Laura J. Mixon" wrote: > >> I wish non-gendered pronouns would catch on in English. I'm trying to >> use them in my current series and I'm going to stick to my guns on >> this, but they definitely don't flow easily off the brain. > > Congrats, I look forward to seeing it. Thanks. I'm really enjoying writing it. One of the races is a set of non-gendered shapeshifters. >"They" works quite well for > me as a non-gendered pronoun, but I know a number of people > don't like it. I'm trying sie and hir, for now. Given that in most of my books I've done something funky with names and/or pronouns, I figure maybe my readership will tolerate it. > That reminds me, has anyone else here ever read a little known > novel by Phyllis Ann Karr _At Amberleaf Fair_? It was an > interesting and remarkably humane fantasy novel involving a > criminal investigation at a great trade fair. The most wonderful part > was that one of the main characters is not given a gender. I noticed > this fact about a third of the way through the novel and reread it > carefully, and there wasn't a single pronoun or other indicator. This > is done very subtlely, and I loved it. I've always been curious as to > how many other readers noticed this fact. I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince myself that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. -l. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 20:07:37 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <145.df47b55.2a047501@aol.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I personally am not convinced that we can ever truly escape our gender. But I do think it's critically important that we strive to, especially where the labels of society make a lie of who we are and wish to be. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 12:39:32 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <117.11039e0c.2a047f65@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1191642510==_ma============" --============_-1191642510==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >At 8:03 PM -0400 3/5/02, Lou Hoffman wrote: >The duality of gender is a social construct as well. I feel terribly ambiguous :) about this - because I can't wholly agree, much as I would like to. Sex is not wholly invented; despite androgynities which occur in the human spectrum, there is very broadly a marked physical difference between male and female. The relationship between male and female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical. I am not at all surprised by the hormonal/behavioural theory, because a similar notion has often occured to me: and I am totally against the "hard wire" determinists, which seem to me like 19C social theorists all over again, only worse - they misrepresent their own science anyway - Best Alison -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ --============_-1191642510==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: [*FSFFU*] WLM and men
At 8:03 PM -0400 3/5/02, Lou Hoffman wrote:
The duality of gender is a social construct as well.

I feel terribly ambiguous :) about this - because I can't wholly agree, much as I would like to.  Sex is not wholly invented; despite androgynities which occur in the human spectrum, there is very broadly a marked physical difference between male and female.  The relationship between male and female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical.  I am not at all surprised by the hormonal/behavioural theory, because a similar notion has often occured to me: and I am totally against the "hard wire" determinists, which seem to me like 19C social theorists all over again, only worse - they misrepresent their own science anyway -

Best

Alison
--

"The only real revolt is the revolt against war."
                                    Albert Camus

Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/

--============_-1191642510==_ma============-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 20:07:02 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Native Tongue -- (Was: WLM and men) Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <145.df47b55.2a047501@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 07:19 PM 5/3/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >I think it is an interesting dichotomy that to successfully 'transcend'=20 >[for want of a better word] a social construction like 'race' or 'gender'= =20 >(?) it seems like people have to pull in the opposite direction for a=20 >[long?] time and organise around the very category they want to change. I= =20 >got quite a lot from this theory I came across that says social constructs= =20 >*solidify* and become so ingrained they become to seem 'natural' to people= =20 >living them ... so whilst you can theorise your way into a new imagining=20 >of the future you have to live out a kind of heightened reality [perhaps=20 >through some sort of separatism] to get to a place where your reality=20 >becomes *practically* very different. In questions of race, I'd study the example of countries like Brazil, which is relatively free of racism (at least compared to the USA). Our own miscegenation laws are too recent for this to be a reality here, since it was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court finally declared all such laws unconstitutional. >I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides were=20 >much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a white=20 >anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and queer] are so= =20 >soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... it is so=20 >personally ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, can't endure=20 >breaking this loop in the totality of our lives. She thought you could=20 >more easily be a fervent white anti-racist and then go home to an inner=20 >world where you didn't have to change very much... and that this is harder= =20 >with feminism. Indeed. >How do we get past this one? In Suzzette Elgin's 'Native tongue' the=20 >linguist women ... when they make the final leap and start to teach Ladan= =20 >to the kids... believe that this alone will create a break in the=20 >perceptual loop [I'm more sceptical]. In 'Door into Ocean' the main male=20 >character [I forget his name] becomes 'feminist'... in this context fully= =20 >adult... by living in a one gender society. [interestingly because of his= =20 >class he cannot go back and forth between the invading elite like Nissi=20 >the Deciever does]... In 'Walk to the ends of the world/ motherlines' we=20 >have simultaneously two sets of women in contrast - the recently-free and= =20 >the free-for-generations who live their gender very differently. Does=20 >anyone know of books where there is a narrative about male=20 >gender-oppression refusniks? [there are the Gentles in 'the Wanderground'= =20 >but they are just a bit mythical] Elgin herself describes her "experiment" with Laadan as a failure. She had imagined that many women might be willing to experiment with a language specifically designed to facilitate women's thought but failed to take into account the fact that women are, by and large, the most proficient speakers and writers of the language we have, as well as being the most astute observers of the vocal and gestural nuance with which we (especially) surround and amplify language so that it serves us better. I think a case could be made that we already *have* Laadan, since women pack far more meaning into words than most men are capable of understanding, since (by and large) they process words linearly and with only one half of their brain. The existence of "women's speech," the vocabulary men use only with reluctance, even if they actually know some of the words that make up that vocabulary, is a case in point. While a *few* heterosexual men might recognize the word "ecru" in casual conversation, there are very few who would dare *use* the word if there were any men within hearing distance. And I think that's one of the reasons so few women bothered to learn Laadan; why bother with a new tool when the old has been honed to an edge of razor precision? I think her training as a linguist partially stands in her way, since she's fixated on written speech (that being the easiest and most common method of finding examples) to the exclusion of other processes. For example, she theorizes that humans are only capable of a finite number of grammatical processes when forming sentences: 1. Insertion 2. Deletion 3. Substitution 4. Movement http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/Linguistics/RWL07.html But reflection would reveal many other processes that function outside (or alongside) the sentence. This is the reason we use various meta-parsings on speech, like quotes, italics, and boldface, which we usually assume to mean some sort of verbal emphasis, and expand bare sentences with descriptions of the context and behavior of both the speaker and the listener. Without that context, we can't really understand the speech unless we use the stilted elaboration of English we call "formal" writing. To take one of her examples: "I'm looking for the small blue squishy thing," she said, rolling her eyes. Although this is a small example with only a tiny bit of context, I think most of us will see that the speaker has modified the meaning of her simple declarative sentence to imply a negation by calling into question the idea that there even *is* a small blue squishy thing or, alternatively, that the idea of finding it is ludicrous. In Laadan, Elgin would have us modify the words with inflections to achieve similar results: http://www.interlog.com/~kms/Laadan/learning.html For example, some of what we implied by rolling our eyes might be conveyed by this construct: wa=E1 - Assumed false by speaker because speaker distrusts source I think a simple thought experiment will allow each of us to draw upon our own repertory of verbal and gestural meta-language to prove that this meaning can, in fact, easily be conveyed in a face to face dialog using existing "language" features almost universally recognized and accessible. Written language is, after all, a secondary use of language and hasn't nearly caught up to the enormous expressive power of our native tongue. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:57:09 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.26bdf716.2a04b615_boundary" --part1_7d.26bdf716.2a04b615_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 9:40:04 PM Central Daylight Time, acroggon@BIGPOND.COM writes: > > >> At 8:03 PM -0400 3/5/02, Lou Hoffman wrote: > > >> The duality of gender is a social construct as well. > > > I feel terribly ambiguous :) about this - because I can't wholly agree, > much as I would like to. Sex is not wholly invented; despite androgynities > which occur in the human spectrum, there is very broadly a marked physical > difference between male and female. The relationship between male and > female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be > incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical. I am not at all > surprised by the hormonal/behavioural theory, because a similar notion has > often occured to me: and I am totally against the "hard wire" determinists, > which seem to me like 19C social theorists all over again, only worse - > they misrepresent their own science anyway - > > > Best > > > Alison > Its not gender itself that I believe is the construct, its the concept of it's duality that I believe is .....'overrated' is perhaps the word for it. Our society seems attached to either/or thinking, and female/male is one of those. Also we tend to view the two extremes as opposing each other, or at the least, mutually exclusive. (female male, nature nurture) This strays from the discussion topic of "Can a male be a feminist?" which of itself didn't really address the question in the original post. To paraphrase: "What makes a piece of SF/F feminist?" I'd like to address that, rather than reprise an argument I've been listening to for at least 25 years. A person can call themselves anything, their actions show who they really are. Current Feminist SF/F deals, in some manner, with issues we consider feminist now. Equal pay, self-determination, parenting issues, respect, there are dozens. It maybe the main plot, it may be background. I say "current" because I believe the issues that are important now will change rapidly. Less than one hundred years ago, we labored for the vote, the right to participate in the military was an idea only toyed with by the extremists. What will the issues be 100, 300, 1000 years from now? Those are stories I want to hear! What do you all think? Lou ... And don't worry about the world coming to an end today, it's already tomorrow in Australia. ---- Charles Schultz --part1_7d.26bdf716.2a04b615_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/3/02 9:40:04 PM Central Daylight Time, acroggon@BIGPOND.COM writes:



At 8:03 PM -0400 3/5/02, Lou Hoffman wrote:
The duality of gender is a social construct as well.

I feel terribly ambiguous :) about this - because I can't wholly agree, much as I would like to.  Sex is not wholly invented; despite androgynities which occur in the human spectrum, there is very broadly a marked physical difference between male and female.  The relationship between male and female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical.  I am not at all surprised by the hormonal/behavioural theory, because a similar notion has often occured to me: and I am totally against the "hard wire" determinists, which seem to me like 19C social theorists all over again, only worse - they misrepresent their own science anyway -


Best


Alison
--

Its not gender itself that I believe is the construct, its the concept of it's duality that I believe is .....'overrated' is perhaps the word for it. Our society seems attached to either/or thinking, and female/male is one of those. Also we tend to view the two extremes as opposing each other, or at the least, mutually exclusive. (female <Vs> male, nature <Vs> nurture)
This strays from the discussion topic of "Can a male be a feminist?" which of itself didn't really address the question in the original post. To paraphrase: "What makes a piece of SF/F feminist?" I'd like to address that, rather than reprise an argument I've been listening to for at least 25 years. A person can call themselves anything, their actions show who they really are.
Current Feminist SF/F deals, in some manner, with issues we consider feminist now. Equal pay, self-determination, parenting issues, respect, there are dozens. It maybe the main plot, it may be background.
I say "current" because I believe the issues that are important now will change rapidly. Less than one hundred years ago, we labored for the vote, the right to participate in the military was an idea only toyed with by the extremists. What will the issues be 100, 300, 1000 years from now?
Those are stories I want to hear!

What do you all think?

Lou   


... And don't worry about the world coming to an end today,  it's already tomorrow in Australia.
---- Charles Schultz
--part1_7d.26bdf716.2a04b615_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:50:48 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: PAT MATHEWS Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Laura J. Mixon" > >Thanks. I'm really enjoying writing it. One of the races is a set of >non-gendered shapeshifters. Yum! > >I'm trying sie and hir, for now. Given that in most of my books I've done >something funky with names and/or pronouns, I figure maybe my readership >will tolerate it. I like the system in Melissa Scott's SHADOW MAN, and after that, the s/he and hir convention because it's more familiar. But in common speech I revert to 'they' and drive the perfectionists nuts. On the other hand, I remember one such pedant solemnly lecturing me on the total depravity of a construction like "womanifesto," apparently under the illusion I didn't know that "manifesto" has more to do with hands than males. My answer was and is "Don't you know a pun when you hear one?" Sorry. This way to the digess. >I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer >Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same >thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince >myself >that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. > Reference, please? I thought I'd read everything she ever wrote. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:46:58 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205040112.173RQr4ls3Nl3p40@payne.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Rachel Wild wrote: > Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of you will have > noticed the recent upsurge in theories like 'why men can't iron' > basically a big upswing in biological determinism. A lot of the new > determinism uses endrochronology - the study of hormones, pheromones > etc. and theories of 'brain sex'. The degree to which social science, especially social science in the US is motivated by ideology is highly disturbing. The fact that such "new" theories are arising during the current swing to the right is hardly surprising. Biological determinism has been used by ideologs (especially in the US) to justify both racism and sexism for the past 150 years (the earliest case I know of were the monogony/polygony debates from just before the Civil War (debates on whether white people and black people were separate species or not). None of the current theories I have seen on psychology and gender have been any better than equally flawed earlier theories - they all are based on theories with deeply flawed methodologies, tiny sample sizes, and similar problems. I am willing to accept that physical science (physics and chemistry) *can* be done in a relatively open-minded and somewhat objective manner. This becomes more difficult with natural science (especially biology), and IMHO completely impossible wrt "social science". As a trained social scientist, I completely agree with late 1980s social scientists like James Clifford who proposed that social science was in fact a misnomer and that all social science should more properly be consider to be subjective, non-scientific disciplines like history and literature. Today at least, the vast majority of studies about both race and gender and psychology have *far* more to do with social scientists looking for evidence to support their own prejudices than with any form of "objective" research. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:46:58 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205040112.173RQr4ls3Nl3p40@payne.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Rachel Wild > I had this discussion with a friend who thought that gender divides > were much harder to live in opposition to that say, living being a > white anti-racist. She thought this is because most of us [het and > queer] are so soaked in gendered behaviour in our *personal* lives... > it is so personally ingrained... that we all , but men specifically, > can't endure breaking this loop in the totality of our lives. She > thought you could more easily be a fervent white anti-racist and then > go home to an inner world where you didn't have to change very much... > and that this is harder with feminism. I find the exact opposite to be true. I live on the far fringe wrt sexuality and gender, and know numerous gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered and transsexual people (and am both bi & mildly transgendered myself). To be honest, I have almost no friends who are both het and traditionally gendered. In this sort of environment one ends up questioning and examining all beliefs and attitudes about sex and gender, including beliefs and attitudes involving personal relationships. Problems in any of these areas rapidly become apparent. My problem with racism is that as a author of role-playing games I have no colleagues who belong to racial minorities, and as a resident of Oregon, I live in one of the whitest states in the US. I have almost no exposure to anyone who isn't white, so I have very little practical experience dealing with non-white people. I don't believe I'm particularly racist, but I'm fairly certain that there are all manner of unexamined and highly dubious attitudes lurking under the surface of my consciousness, in part simply because I have no reality check on whatever unconscious racism I may have. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:07:24 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Sarah Young Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: PAT MATHEWS > >>From: "Laura J. Mixon" >> >>I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer >>Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same >>thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince >>myself >>that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. >> >Reference, please? I thought I'd read everything she ever wrote. > Was that Lythande? --Sarah _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:30:42 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 5/4/02 12:50 AM, PAT MATHEWS at mathews55@MSN.COM wrote: >> From: "Laura J. Mixon" >> >> Thanks. I'm really enjoying writing it. One of the races is a set of >> non-gendered shapeshifters. > > Yum! :) > On the other hand, I remember > one such pedant solemnly lecturing me on the total depravity of a > construction like "womanifesto," apparently under the illusion I didn't know > that "manifesto" has more to do with hands than males. My answer was and is > "Don't you know a pun when you hear one?" Sorry. This way to the digess. Great answer! >> I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer >> Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same >> thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince >> myself >> that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. >> > Reference, please? I thought I'd read everything she ever wrote. Was it Liavek? It was a fantasy shared world series, and I know Robin Bailey also wrote in it. I'll let it simmer and see what emerges. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:42:48 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: PAT MATHEWS Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Sarah Young >>>From: "Laura J. Mixon" >>> >>>I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer >>>Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same >>>thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince >>>myself >>>that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. >>> >>Reference, please? I thought I'd read everything she ever wrote. >> >Was that Lythande? > Oh, of COURSE! I'd utterly forgotten that the first Lythande story started that way. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Òs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 22:53:08 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/4/02 1:48:41 AM Central Daylight Time, sneadj@MINDSPRING.COM writes: << Today at least, the vast majority of studies about both race and gender and psychology have *far* more to do with social scientists looking for evidence to support their own prejudices than with any form of "objective" research. >> Even something slightly less contentious than gender, such as the effects of hormonal therapy in supposedly preventing a variety of ailments in women, is almost impossible to get carefully designed, replicated and large sampled studies on, but in the interim every supposed 'proof' of the efficacy of using these medications is trumpeted far and wide in the press. All because of the welloiled publicity machines of the pharmaceutical companies. So I take every piece of supposed evidence of studies that are a dime a dozen with the proverbial grain of salt. And that's leaving aside the greater theoretical questions of how things all fit together. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 00:30:57 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Todd Mason Subject: Judith Merrill autobio launch party Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.datlow.com/gallery/friends/photospohlweary.html >From Ellen Datlow's site. The book is called BETTER TO HAVE LOVED: THE LIVE OF JUDITH MERRIL. I'm looking forward to it... TM (long-term nurturance-importance advocate) -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 12:28:14 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Cynthia Organization: Prodigy Internet Subject: Re: Native Tongue -- (Was: WLM and men) Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit to take into account the fact that women are, by and large, the most proficient speakers and writers of the language we have, as well as being the most astute observers of the vocal and gestural nuance with which we (especially) surround and amplify language so that it serves us better. The above statement is false. speech," the vocabulary men use only with reluctance, even if they actually know some of the words that make up that vocabulary, is a case in point. This statement is very much culturally specific. American men, in general, tend to be this way, but that is due to how they are taught and socialized. The men of my family and my male friends are very different from the American norm because they were well educated and taught that philosphy and language are important. Language acquistion is taught. While it is true that certain brain cells are develped to specialize in language, the number and placement of them are determined by the environment. Emphaisis on language causes the creation of more of them. If a part of the brain that normally is used for language is damaged, other parts of the brain will develop cells to handle language. Men and women do tend to process various tasks differently, but they can and do arrive at the same levels of quality if educated to the same standards of quality. We also have a huge body of literature that demonstrates that men can and surely do use language with finesse, skill, sublty, and beauty. We also have school systems like those of Miami that demonstrate day in and day out that lousy teaching of language makes all students, male and female, lousy users of language. Cynthia -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 12:43:23 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Cynthia Organization: Prodigy Internet Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Today at least, the vast majority of studies about both race and > gender and psychology have *far* more to do with social scientists > looking for evidence to support their own prejudices than with any > form of "objective" research. John, This particular statement is not true. The bigots trying to teach everyone to be be bigots write these tomes based on descredited work and for some reason publishers love to push those sorts of books. The vast majority of social scientists are horrified by these books and do not manage to get out to the public their legetimate research. There are two examples of completely wrong, fully discredited ideas taking public attention. The first is the "box" Chumsky claimed all brains have that formulate language in all people. (Chumsky actually called it a box.) Skinner felt this was so obviously wrong that know one needed to have it explaine to them why it is wrong. By his failure to speak up, this completely bogus idea is still being taught to all English majors and is part of the study of linguistics. The other example occured a few years ago when Oprah championed a woman who teaches that parents basically are not responsible for children's behavior. Children do what children do regardless, this woman preaches. This too is absolutely false, but again the people doing legetimate work who have disproved this notion over and over are not featured by Oprah to explain why the notion is wrong. So the real question is, why are publishers and other forms of the media so willing to give huge publicity to false and at times dangerously erroneous ideas and not to the true findings? Cynthia -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 11:44:55 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Jocelyn Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >There are two examples of >completely wrong, fully discredited ideas taking public attention. The first >is the "box" Chumsky claimed all brains have that formulate language in all >people. (Chumsky actually called it a box.) Skinner felt this was so >obviously wrong that know one needed to have it explaine to them why it is >wrong. By his failure to speak up, this completely bogus idea is still being >taught to all English majors and is part of the study of linguistics. Cynthia, as an English major I can assure you it wasn't taught to me. And if it's taught in linguistics, I bet it, like all other of Chomsky's ideas, is taught historically rather than as part of current linguistic thinking. Sheryl -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 11:12:46 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: PAT MATHEWS Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Cynthia >John, > >So the real question is, why are publishers and other forms of the media so >willing to give huge publicity to false and at times dangerously erroneous >ideas and not to the true findings? > >Cynthia > Two reasons: Because it sells, and sells big, especially if it generates controversy without really attacking our basic beliefs. And, because it confirms a lot of people's folk beliefs or offers them an attractive alternative. Parents not responsible for their childrens' behavior? That lets ME off the hook! Either for trying harder, or for the fact that the kid came out dead opposite to everything I am and stand for. A third example is the woman who put out a book saying it doesn't really harm kids to have sex with adults. This pleases the teenagers in love whose hormones are raging hot, as well as those attracted to such teenagers, let alone the real pedophiles. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 14:43:03 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Margaret Poore Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Feminism and Science Fiction Survey Gender: f Age (optional): 53 1. How many science fiction works (short stories, novels, fan fiction, etc.) do you read per year? maybe 30? 2. Who are some of your favorite authors? Marion Zimmer Bradley, ursula k leguin, Elizabeth Moon, Diana Rivers, Nicola Griffith, Melissa Scott 3. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a male character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these men do you identify with and/or admire? no 4. Do you ever visualize yoursef as a female character in science fiction works? If so, what characteristics about these women do you identify with and/or admire? no 5. How do you believe women are typically portrayed in science fiction works? there is no one answer to this; it has changed over time and varies depending on the genres within the genre and of course by author 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: female authors, male authors, neither, or both? I have mostly quit reading male authors. the main exceptions are Scott Card and Guy Gavriel Key. The reason I quit reading them is that I much prefer characters of either sex created by women. 7. Do you believe that science fiction is an appropriate genre to explore feminist issues? I believe just about any genre is appropriate to explore feminist issues 8. Do you enjoy feminist science fiction? yes, that is why I am on this list 9. Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of feminist science fiction works published in the future? I'd like to see more good sf published -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 14:45:57 -0400 Reply-To: judithberman@earthlink.net Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Judith Berman Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > A third example is the woman who put out a book saying it doesn't really > harm kids to have sex with adults. This pleases the teenagers in love > whose > hormones are raging hot, as well as those attracted to such teenagers, let > alone the real pedophiles. I haven't read this book (Judith Levine, HARMFUL TO MINORS), but my impression is that the reporting on it has been completely irresponsible. As far as I've been able to gather, it's about the sexuality (not -- necessarily -- sex acts!) of teenagers and children, which is evidently a terrifying subject for many Americans who don't seem to remember their own years as such. It advocates neither pedophilia nor sexual exploitation of minors. Even in our local multiple-Pulitzer-winning paper, it was clear the reporter hadn't read the book and was using quotes culled from other articles. The best piece I've seen on it was published in a Minneapolis newspaper and is now online at: http://www.citypages.com/databank/23/1116/article10336.asp -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 15:58:12 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Feminist Sci Fi.... is what? [Neuromancer] Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_192.698000a.2a06e8d4_boundary" --part1_192.698000a.2a06e8d4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "This strays from the discussion topic of "Can a male be a feminist?" which of itself didn't really address the question in the original post. To paraphrase: "What makes a piece of SF/F feminist?" I'd like to address that" My opening gambit on this would be that it is Sci-Fi written by feminists [quake as postmodernism storms through the halls of academia in hot pursuit...] But as a feminist ... my[feminist]self is often fascinated by narratives that are no such thing. It occurred to me [pretty late at night, I must admit] to ask the list's views on 'Neuromancer' as a feminist narrative. There are direct correlation's between the heritage of Cyberpunk and the feminist classic 'Woman on the edge of time' [coming full circle in Piercy's own 'cyberpunk' Body of Glass]... and perhaps from other strands of feminist writing. I'm quite interested in whether a world in which collective resistance *as we know it* is virtually useless can embody a concept such as contemporary feminism? also within a book where there are few women characters & the narrator and writer are male. Despite this I'm fascinated by the characters of Molly, Linda Lee and 2Jane - I'm lulled by the way Gibson writes almost post-male characters for his fragile cowboys - in an environment where power [patriarchal power at that] is felt so extremely. So do anyone else have a feminist feeling for Neuromancer? Prey tell... ByeBye Rachel --part1_192.698000a.2a06e8d4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "This strays from the discussion topic of "Can a male be a feminist?" which of itself didn't really address the question in the original post. To paraphrase: "What makes a piece of SF/F feminist?" I'd like to address that"

My opening gambit on this would be that it is Sci-Fi written by feminists [quake as postmodernism storms through the halls of academia in hot pursuit...]

But as a feminist ... my[feminist]self is often fascinated by narratives that are no such thing. It occurred to me [pretty late at night, I must admit] to ask the list's views on 'Neuromancer' as a feminist narrative.

There are direct correlation's between the heritage of Cyberpunk and the feminist classic 'Woman on the edge of time' [coming full circle in Piercy's own 'cyberpunk' Body of Glass]... and perhaps from other strands of feminist writing.

I'm quite interested in whether a world in which collective resistance *as we know it* is virtually useless can embody a concept such as contemporary feminism? also within a book where there are few women characters & the narrator and writer are male.
Despite this I'm fascinated by the characters of Molly, Linda Lee and 2Jane - I'm lulled by the way Gibson writes almost post-male characters for his fragile cowboys - in an environment where power [patriarchal power at that] is felt so extremely.

So do anyone else have a feminist feeling for Neuromancer?
Prey tell...
ByeBye
Rachel --part1_192.698000a.2a06e8d4_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 13:30:55 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Native Tongue Comments: To: FemSF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:28 PM 5/5/02 -0400, Cynthia wrote: >to take into account the fact that women are, by and large, the most >proficient speakers and writers of the language we have, as well as >being the most astute observers of the vocal and gestural nuance >with which we (especially) surround and amplify language so that >it serves us better. > >The above statement is false. I beg your pardon? While it is true that *individual* men may differ significantly from the majority of their sex, the differences are quite clear and every intelligence test is normed based on those qualities. Many intelligence tests, as well as psychological tests, cannot even be meaningfully scored without prior knowledge of the sex of the tested individual. This is true even of pure language tests, and the relatively high scores of females have to be carefully balanced by including questions upon which males tend to do better. But when more subtle tests are added, women's advantage in non-verbal communication increases still further. Specifically, women are far better at looking at pictures (or people in real time) and deducing what emotions are being expressed. For example, in the MEIS (see Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), women correctly identify underlying emotions from facial expressions far more easily than men do, on average. It's been postulated that women's abilities in this regard are facilitated by a greater connection between the two hemispheres of the brain, notably in the corpus collosum, which anatomical structure differs between the two sexes in the same way that other anatomical structures do. Most people find no difficulty accepting the fact that male and female anatomy differs, on average, despite a certain amount of ambiguous overlap. In fact, these differences have been embodied in law, religious belief, and custom throughout recorded history. Not to mention "common sense." The brain differences are quite regular, on the whole, although there has been intriguing research recently that seems to indicate that some gay men, in particular, are more likely to exhibit some brain structures and patterns of thought that are more characteristic of females. Women, on average, are able to transmit information between the two hemispheres more rapidly and typically process language on both sides of the brain at once, bringing many parallel processes to bear on interpreting conversation and reading. Because of this, women are able to recover more easily from strokes affecting the speech centers in the brain, while men often fail to recover any langauge ability whatsoever. >speech," the vocabulary men use only with reluctance, even if they >actually know some of the words that make up that vocabulary, is >a case in point. > >This statement is very much culturally specific. American men, in general, >tend to be this way, but that is due to how they are taught and socialized. >The men of my family and my male friends are very different from the >American norm because they were well educated and taught that philosphy and >language are important. How fascinating that the small subset of men you know has, by miraculous coincidence, been gifted thusly. Are they also good looking and sparkling conversationalists? This brings to mind the psychological paradox that most people (over 95%) consider themselves to be of "above average" intelligence, despite the obvious fact that approximately half of these people are deluding themselves. But the statement you quibble with holds true in almost every language, although it is far more pronounced in English, since most other languages have a relative dearth of words making up their available lexicon. Both men and women limit their vocabularies, as part of a general strategy of exaggerating sexual dimorphism, but women *tend* to restrict themselves on the basis on vulgarity and crudeness, so that the average woman does not, in fact, "curse like a sailor," but men tend to restrict themselves on the basis of what might be termed "sensitivity," for lack of a better word, so that making too fine a distinction or too emotional a response in ordinary conversation seems "effeminate," not the sort of thing that real men *do*, really. >Language acquistion is taught. While it is true that certain brain cells are >develped to specialize in language, the number and placement of them are >determined by the environment. Emphaisis on language causes the creation of >more of them. If a part of the brain that normally is used for language is >damaged, other parts of the brain will develop cells to handle language. This first is absolutely untrue, or more precisely outdated. Language acquisition is instinctive, and proceeds without thought and largely without, or even in despite of, outside intermediation, being largely accomplished through observation and experimentation on the part of the learner. Even higher education is a process from which one *takes* far more than one in which one is imparted to, despite the fond delusions of some teachers. The main function of a teacher, indeed, an educational system, is to facilitate and stand aside, not stuff little factoids into blank brains like pennies into a piggy bank, despite the appeal this fatuous idea has for many of the "Three R's" crowd of yahoos. As for the latter statement, would that it were true. Stroke and cerebral palsy would, in this marvelous alternative reality, be temporary conditions from which we would spring forth like Prometheus (or perhaps more appropriately, Athena) fully formed and armed for bear. *Limited* recovery *may* be possible from such cerebral accidents, but with more or less success, as I observed above. Many never recover *any* useful replacement functionality, and even in the most favorable of circumstances residual damage is usually evident to trained observers. Brains do not recover, by and large, from serious insults and it seems likely, on the basis of recent observations of long-term brain dysfunction in adults who were sexually abused as children and the relatively large numbers of females who experience such abuse, that the average women would be more clever than even *I* think she is without such a history of institutionalized shaping of women's subordination and compliance. >Men and women do tend to process various tasks differently, but they can and >do arrive at the same levels of quality if educated to the same standards of >quality. Perhaps so. But in my experience I've noted far more educational "quality" in far larger numbers of women. This is not to say that there aren't boring women, or women who are otherwise dull, but when it comes to boredom, I don't think anything can equal a room full of men. Of course this is merely a personal observation, but a great many women have come to essentially similar conclusions. I think there are far more women who've discovered that men are quite transparent and obvious than vice versa. But what you really talk about when you discuss quality in education is actually excellence, and excellence is exceptional in both men and women. I see no difficulty whatsoever in imagining that men of exceptional intelligence and education are outliers from the norm. It seems to me that there are *lots* more gay men among college graduates, for example, and the further along in his education a man gets the less stereotypically "masculine" he seems likely to be. So it may be that "educated" men are more likely to possess brains with female thought patterns. Relative numbers of homosexuals among men with more education is a commonplace of psychological research, and easily verified on the web, but the rest would be harder to prove, since few men are willing to identify themselves as feminine, no matter how obvious the fact may be to others. Most of the intellectual men of my acquaintance were bullied as "faggots" or "sissies" by other boys and men during their childhood and adolescence but, what the heck, what do I know? Of course the mere existence of the word "effeminate," with no equally contemptuous equivalent label for women, would seem to argue that society agrees with me, all in all. Indeed, the word "virtue," which means at its heart, "manly," would seem to imply that anything womanly is a thing not regularly bragged about by manly men. >We also have a huge body of literature that demonstrates that men can and >surely do use language with finesse, skill, sublty, and beauty. So? My observation wasn't made about written language, which has evolved with a considerable degree of autonomy from the spoken language, and has, through historical inattention to the education of women, who were and are often illiterate, even in a literate society, been formulated along lines that allow men to perform according to their natures. But even there the library of humanity is not entirely unambiguous. Many of our greatest wits and raconteurs were unabashedly homosexual, and a very large number of great artists and great writers were similarly inclined. This doesn't disprove my thesis at all, and in fact may support it, as I observed above in relation to education. Women have been, until very recently in our history, ignored and discouraged from undertaking *any* endeavor other than children, church, and kitchen. In a global society wherein women are not schooled at all, or removed from school at graduation from grammar school, the relatively low numbers of female authors and artists is not, in reality, to be wondered at nor can any conclusions be fairly drawn. Indeed, the mere fact that there are, in fact, many women artists and authors whose work has been heretofore attributed to (and claimed by) the men in their immediate vicinity is testimony to the fact that many women have achieved excellence in complete obscurity and in despite of very powerful societal forces arrayed against them. The whole point of the Native Tongue series of novels is that "my" observation is true, and is well known among linguists at least, and Elgin's experiment was designed to test the Whorfian hypothesis that language acts as a filter on reality, and that a more specifically female language would not only facilitate female thought but that it would be relatively opaque to most men. I happen to think that she was wrong *only* in assuming that such a language did not already exist, and *already* existed with the same sort of invisibility from the gaze of men that she speculated upon. And the relative status of women, even in the houses of the linguists, is an accurate (if slightly exaggerated) reflection of the scholarly male-dominated world she worked and studied in, and still exists in many fields. Women are *still* discouraged from undertaking certain activities and entering certain fields, and it still takes considerable courage and strength of intention for a woman to stray too far outside our societal norms. >We also have school systems like those of Miami that demonstrate day in and >day out that lousy teaching of language makes all students, male and female, >lousy users of language. No doubt. But then the school system is precisely and cleverly designed to accomplish exactly what the people in charge of "our" collective finances really want. One doesn't really need all that many "cooks" in our societal kitchen, and too much education makes the dishwashers and scullery maids "uppity" and dangerous. Lee Anne -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 15:21:01 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Feminist Sci Fi.... is what? [Neuromancer] Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <192.698000a.2a06e8d4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:58 PM 5/5/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >My opening gambit on this would be that it is Sci-Fi written by feminists >[quake as postmodernism storms through the halls of academia in hot >pursuit...] I'd agree. The fact that one may find diamonds by sifting through sand doesn't make the beaches of Tahiti into diamond mines. Any human may present ideas (or problems) that may be viewed in a feminist light. One may even find ideas *compatible* with feminism in a thoroughly sexist work by a male author unalloyed by any hint of feminine sensibility or intelligence. That doesn't make such a work "feminist" any more than it makes Tahiti into South Africa. Heinlein (my favorite example of such faux feminism, since he is so well known and crops up everywhere, but equally silly examples abound) has many "strong female characters, even in his "juvenile" stories, but the overall effect is flawed by the pathetic fallacy (and I use this exact phrase with full intention) of imagining that even his strong women have interior feelings little different from those imputed to them by Freud and your average pornographer. So his female Sergeant of Marines, a rough and tumble woman who believes in carrying knives and guns concealed about her person the better to slay random assailants, is waiting for her retirement when she plans to find a nice man and settle down to raise children in a rose-covered cottage. The unlikelihood of this, and the seemingly more logical probability that such a woman would be more likely to desire a nice woman to settle down with than a man, never occurs to him. In his later years, when he developed enough stature that he could ignore censorship, his female heroines spent much of their time planning their next sexual encounters (with men, of course, but surely a necessity given the large number of sexual encounters they had), loved being the bottom in sadomasochistic sexual experiences (Ooh! Spanking!), were enthusiastic about group sex (especially gang-banging by random men at parties- a la Ken Kesey's Mountain Girl and the Hells Angels), and far removed from any of the women I actually know, much less myself. I think in part his "strong females" were rhetorical "tricks," intended like his famous phrase, "The door dilated," to quickly demonstrate that the reader had been transported into the future, a reality so alien to everyday experience that doors didn't swing or slide any more, and women were (gasp!) independent and had minds of their own (be still, my beating heart!), which of course was nearly impossible for his (mostly) male readers to imagine. >But as a feminist ... my[feminist]self is often fascinated by narratives >that are no such thing. It occurred to me [pretty late at night, I must >admit] to ask the list's views on 'Neuromancer' as a feminist narrative. Absolutely not. Many parts of his world are not incompatible with feminism, just as bricks and bicycles are not, but his worldview seems depressingly masculine and even sophomoric, which would make sense considering that his primary audience is young men. To me, this is like asking if the large-bosomed women with exaggerated (if this were possible!) Barbie figures found in mass-market comic books are "feminist" because they fight crime and bounce around (OK, so it's hard to show them bouncing in a comic book, but with *those* boobs, you can bet they do) swinging from ropes and hurtling off tall buildings only to save themselves by snagging a nail on a window ledge five stories below. Dang! I wonder what sort of acrylic is quite that durable and sturdy? >There are direct correlation's between the heritage of Cyberpunk and the >feminist classic 'Woman on the edge of time' [coming full circle in >Piercy's own 'cyberpunk' Body of Glass]... and perhaps from other strands >of feminist writing. I think such parallels are inevitable, since all SF is based ultimately on human societies as they exist now and must, perforce, remain recognizable enough that people's heads don't hurt while reading. We have a common heritage, and I'm sure Gibson has read both Piercy and Shakespeare. Writing is his trade and every serious writer I know has an extensive library in which he or she has immersed deeply over a period of many years. The temptation to "do it right" when one encounters an "interesting" social construct is nearly irresistible, I think, and more than one novel is a conversational response to another, even if we ourselves have missed the first part of the dialog. >I'm quite interested in whether a world in which collective resistance *as >we know it* is virtually useless can embody a concept such as contemporary >feminism? also within a book where there are few women characters & the >narrator and writer are male. I think not, since the foundation of feminism is not that we can, as individuals, change the structure of society, but that collective action is a prerequisite for any such action. The individualist "superhero" is a social construct far more attractive to the male weltanschauung, I think, despite such strange anomalies as Ayn Rand and her Nietzschean ilk. Most women are mature enough, and respectful enough of human society, to realize that it takes a village to do almost *anything* of worth. >Despite this I'm fascinated by the characters of Molly, Linda Lee and >2Jane - I'm lulled by the way Gibson writes almost post-male characters >for his fragile cowboys - in an environment where power [patriarchal power >at that] is felt so extremely. I think the isolation and alienation of the characters explicitly shown in Gibson's work is specifically non-feminist, although there *are* collectives of a sort. I rather confess to a fondness for some of his characters myself, despite being embedded like plums in a pudding somewhat less appetizing. This is not to say that he isn't a good writer, all in all, nor that I haven't enjoyed *some* of his novels (especially his earlier work, despite better writing in the later books), but I don't believe that "attractive" women must necessarily be delineated by any sort of feminist conscience. And the feeling throughout the novels is that even *men* have been "unmanned" by technological and corporate society, I think his use of female characters to point this out is a cliche of male experience used by *many* male writers. If such cultures are patriarchal, as perhaps they must be, then he seems to believe that women (and, by extension, men) can only come to terms with them through "feminine" wiles and artifice. In the long run, are any of Gibson's brain enhancements and cyborg body implants really much different from "permanent makeup" and boob jobs? While we can certainly learn a feminist lesson here, I don't find the territory particularly "feminist," since few of the strategies women really use in coping with, perhaps even overcoming, the extremes of patriarchal excess are shown. And at least some of what *is* shown seems tossed in like Heinlein's irising doors, gadgets designed to show us we're living in the future rather than integral parts of a consistent critique of the world. And the women get worse as time goes by. By Mona Lisa Overdrive, 3Jane has become insane, others are dead (so there!), and the world is still going to hell in a handbasket. Where's the fun in that? >So do anyone else have a feminist feeling for Neuromancer? >Prey tell... I don't prey on people I respect. ;-) Lee Anne -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 18:31:24 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_102.14b30b90.2a070cbc_boundary" --part1_102.14b30b90.2a070cbc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Whilst Lee Anne's post on women and language interested me I am shy of phisiological explanations for these skills as a genetic trait [having only skim read it so far] For example Deaf people... users of visual languages may process some language functions in their visual centres [with interesting language implications] but many Deaf people are not Deaf due to inheritance. The implications being that use alters function Bye Rachel --part1_102.14b30b90.2a070cbc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Whilst Lee Anne's post on women and language interested me I am shy of phisiological explanations for these skills as a genetic trait [having only skim read it so far]
For example Deaf people... users of visual languages may process some language functions in their visual centres [with interesting language implications] but many Deaf people are not Deaf due to inheritance.
The implications being that use alters function

Bye
Rachel --part1_102.14b30b90.2a070cbc_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 19:07:11 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Neuromancer Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d0.26cbaf09.2a07151f_boundary" --part1_d0.26cbaf09.2a07151f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My fondness for Neuromancer [in paticular... though I have it for certain other of Gibson's work] is based on what can be learnt from Dystopia. Molly, for example... the clasic comic book babe in leather, eye-insets and retractible tallons, is not this alone. She is what she is because she has to continually buy a new body to survive - firstly by prostitution as a meat puppet and then by choice as a street-Samuri [shown as limited and fragile options]. Molly is not attached to men for long because they dull her edge... and being a warrior is her essence - she chooses her Self above romanticism. Riveara turns Molly into a cartoon [sadly this is replicated by most of the graphic representations of this character to date] and this is one reason she kills him. True, there are no great reasons to congratulate men on managing to create characters with more depth that none at all - But I wonder how Neuromancer has acted upon the world... has it been a warning about Trans-global corporate power, or has it merely described it as inevitable? I agree with LeeAnne that Gibson describes the unmanning of *even* men - and that this may be somewhat spurious, but is it of interest to feminism that patriarchal-capitalism will turn on men as it has always devoured [if allowed to] women? ByeBye Rachel --part1_d0.26cbaf09.2a07151f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My fondness for Neuromancer [in paticular... though I have it for certain other of Gibson's work] is based on what can be learnt from Dystopia.
Molly, for example... the clasic comic book babe in leather, eye-insets and retractible tallons, is not this alone. She is what she is because she has to continually buy a new body to survive - firstly by prostitution as a meat puppet and then by choice as a street-Samuri [shown as limited and fragile options]. Molly is not attached to men for long because they dull her edge... and being a warrior is her essence - she chooses her Self above romanticism. Riveara turns Molly into a cartoon [sadly this is replicated by most of the graphic representations of this character to date] and this is one reason she kills him.

True, there are no great reasons to congratulate men on managing to create characters with more depth that none at all - But I wonder how Neuromancer has acted upon the world... has it been a warning about Trans-global corporate power, or has it merely described it as inevitable?
I agree with LeeAnne that Gibson describes the unmanning of *even* men - and that this may be somewhat spurious, but is it of interest to feminism that patriarchal-capitalism will turn on men as it has always devoured [if allowed to] women?

ByeBye
Rachel --part1_d0.26cbaf09.2a07151f_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:29:00 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <102.14b30b90.2a070cbc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1191481028==_ma============" --============_-1191481028==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I too am uncomfortable... I know too many "exceptions". The majority of men of my acquaintance are artists of one kind or another, so a self selecting group; most of them are not gay. But even given that, it seems to me that there is more flexibility in sex and gender than is suggested here. Perhaps it is that urban social norms in Australia might permit more individualism than in America. My son and my daughter (both young adolescents) write creatively for their own pleasure (they are both very verbally articulate, too). They are raised in a house full of books, with two parents who are writers; and so it is unsurprising these skills are valued in their environment, and that they choose to exercise them. My son writes plays, direct dialogue. I noticed in his last play about the only correct spelling was "Luigi Pirandello", although his aural pickup of verbal rhythms and energies is very acute. My daughter writes poems, and her spelling is much better; her talent seems much more in the area of visual metaphor, and more "literary". Writing to them is neither a feminine nor a masculine activity; it might be more accurate that they think of it as an adult activity (I'm sure they'll get over it). I guess it might be illuminating to say that I am primarily a poet, and my husband is primarily a playwright; but Josh is writing an incomprehensible fantasy novel,no doubt because I am in the throes of finishing my own (I hope not so incomprehensible) fantasy... it's pretty clear in this microstate that they're modelling themselves on the adult behaviours available, and their skills develop according to what is valued around them. Best A >Whilst Lee Anne's post on women and language interested me I am shy >of phisiological explanations for these skills as a genetic trait >[having only skim read it so far] >For example Deaf people... users of visual languages may process >some language functions in their visual centres [with interesting >language implications] but many Deaf people are not Deaf due to >inheritance. >The implications being that use alters function > >Bye >Rachel -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ --============_-1191481028==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: [*FSFFU*] Women's language abilities
I too am uncomfortable... I know too many "exceptions".  The majority of men of my acquaintance are artists of one kind or another, so a self selecting group; most of them are not gay.  But even given that, it seems to me that there is more flexibility in sex and gender than is suggested here.  Perhaps it is that urban social norms in Australia might permit more individualism than in America.

My son and my daughter (both young adolescents) write creatively for their own pleasure (they are both very verbally articulate, too).  They are raised in a house full of books, with two parents who are writers; and so it is unsurprising these skills are valued in their environment, and that they choose to exercise them.  My son writes plays, direct dialogue.  I noticed in his last play about the only correct spelling was "Luigi Pirandello", although his aural pickup of verbal rhythms and energies is very acute.  My daughter writes poems, and her spelling is much better; her talent seems much more in the area of visual metaphor, and more "literary".  Writing to them is neither a feminine nor a masculine activity; it might be more accurate that they think of it as an adult activity (I'm sure they'll get over it).  I guess it might be illuminating to say that I am primarily a poet, and my husband is primarily a playwright; but Josh is writing an incomprehensible fantasy novel,no doubt because I am in the throes of finishing my own (I hope not so incomprehensible) fantasy... it's pretty clear in this microstate that they're modelling themselves on the adult behaviours available, and their skills develop according to what is valued around them.

Best

A

Whilst Lee Anne's post on women and language interested me I am shy of phisiological explanations for these skills as a genetic trait [having only skim read it so far]
For example Deaf people... users of visual languages may process some language functions in their visual centres [with interesting language implications] but many Deaf people are not Deaf due to inheritance.
The implications being that use alters function

Bye
Rachel

--

"The only real revolt is the revolt against war."
                                    Albert Camus

Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/

--============_-1191481028==_ma============-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 16:51:47 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <102.14b30b90.2a070cbc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 06:31 PM 5/5/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >For example Deaf people... users of visual languages may process some >language functions in their visual centres [with interesting language >implications] but many Deaf people are not Deaf due to inheritance. >The implications being that use alters function True. Ramachandran has demonstrated "spillage" into other regions of functions (like visual interpretation of languages) not usually carried there when those physical organs become useless due to accident or disease. The most obvious example is when the brain of an amputee maps the sensation of absent body parts onto nearby regions of the brain, so that one might be able to "scratch" an itch in a phantom limb by touching the cheek, or rubbing the nose might feel like tickling a toe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf2.html or for a slightly more titillating example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf3.html But he also discovered that this alteration of what might *seem* to be reality could be duplicated experimentally, and without lopping parts of the body off. He details an exercise in which he manages to "convince" the brain that his nose is three feet long, for example. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf6.html But most of these experiments involve normal brains dealing with damaged bodies, not vice versa. Although there is a possibility of recovery from accidents involving the brain itself, this is much less likely and the short survival time after stroke (average: seven years) simply doesn't give most people enough time to recover all that much. Many people become so depressed after a cerebral accident that they find it impossible to make the enormous effort required to achieve even marginal recovery, and the few real success stories involve persons, like Kurt Douglas, whose ability to *control* the organs involved in speech was impaired without the radical aphasia that makes recovery difficult to impossible, were highly motivated and naturally "upbeat," so managed to survive even though Douglas, for example, thought seriously of suicide. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:28:52 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Neuromancer Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:07 PM 5/5/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >My fondness for Neuromancer [in paticular... though I have it for certain >other of Gibson's work] is based on what can be learnt from Dystopia. >Molly, for example... the clasic comic book babe in leather, eye-insets >and retractible tallons, is not this alone. She is what she is because she >has to continually buy a new body to survive - firstly by prostitution as >a meat puppet and then by choice as a street-Samuri [shown as limited and >fragile options]. Molly is not attached to men for long because they dull >her edge... and being a warrior is her essence - she chooses her Self >above romanticism. Riveara turns Molly into a cartoon [sadly this is >replicated by most of the graphic representations of this character to >date] and this is one reason she kills him. Interestingly, Molly is also an example of the "tough broad" from the 40's private "dick" novels. She'd fit into a Raymond Chandler novel quite easily, all in all. In fact, the Gibson "cyberpunk" future isn't all that easily distinguished from the noir atmosphere of the disaffected post-war years. The same dehumanization of the "common man" was present even then, and the power of the corporations in incestuous consort with government was already beginning to make people feel powerless and distrustful. Considering how densely Gibson writes, and how widely he ranges in his literary antecedents, I wouldn't be surprised if Molly is a conscious evocation of the "gun moll," a stock character in the gumshoe novels who often incorporates both of Molly's trades, as prostitute and female killer, both of which hold endless fascination for adolescent males, of whatever age. >True, there are no great reasons to congratulate men on managing to create >characters with more depth that none at all - But I wonder how Neuromancer >has acted upon the world... has it been a warning about Trans-global >corporate power, or has it merely described it as inevitable? >I agree with LeeAnne that Gibson describes the unmanning of *even* men - >and that this may be somewhat spurious, but is it of interest to feminism >that patriarchal-capitalism will turn on men as it has always devoured [if >allowed to] women? Of course, although feminism has always been aware of this. From the cruel enclosures of the eighteenth century to the murderous union-busting of the late nineteenth century, women, common women, have always known that their men are, by and large, targets of the "greater" powers. You can hear it in old folk songs, like The Cruel War is Raging; and in the activities of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, who also supported the unions of men, despite the fact that their own lot was even harder than that of the men, and in spite of the fact that advances for the men were often counterbalanced by setbacks for women and the male workers often failed to support the women. One of the arguments of the Suffragist Movement during the so-called First Wave of feminism is that our society was unbalanced by the silencing of women's voices in the political process and that men were often destroyed by the distorted social milieu which resulted. In this view, which owed much to cultural feminism, drunkenness and vice were tolerated and entire families harmed by the dependencies thus formed because men were not as well-motivated to curb them, men being what they are. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:54:14 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:29 AM 5/6/02 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote: >I too am uncomfortable... I know too many "exceptions". I too know mostly "exceptions." Self-respecting women of any intelligence don't allow *unexceptional* men within their circle of friends, or within ten yards if they can help it. So one can't rely on one's intimates for any clear idea of what's out there. Think of the "men" who watch "Professional Wrestling" on TV, the eagerness with which they ogle scantily-clad "bimbos," and the misogynist culture surrounding strip clubs, brothels, and other male-centered "industries" exploiting the sexual appearance and/or labor of women. That's where you begin to discern the "average man." He isn't pretty, he isn't articulate, and he isn't nice. Professional wrestling is the hottest item on TV, and wildly popular with advertisers, because it targets the large majority of young men, "mooks," in advertising parlance, whose decisions will drive the purchases of the next generation. And men *do* drive those purchases. "Date" movies are "guy" movies, since women will "go along" while men (for the most part) wouldn't walk into a "chick flick" if Britney Spears was waiting on the other side of the lobby door. (Well, maybe then... but she'd have to be naked) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/script.html The interesting part of these definitions is that a mook is defined by his behavior, churlish, stupid, and self-centered. A midriff, on the other hand, is defined by her sexual availability, or at least the *appearance* of availability through sexual display. Freud didn't have to ask, "What do *men* really want?" because it's usually painfully obvious. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 19:25:42 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: PAT MATHEWS Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Alison Croggon >"The only real revolt is the revolt against war." > Albert Camus > Wait a minute. Isn't he the guy who wrote a book about a Frenchman who killed an Arab for kicks & giggles? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:47:39 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020505173018.00a482c0@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I get your point indeed. I have in fact many examples of unattractive masculinity set before me every day. But I still feel very uncomfortable with the deterministic flavour of the argument; these articulations of masculinity are not necessarily inevitable, unarguable though they are in fact. Seems to me also that social conditioning clicks in much earlier than with boys than with girls, who can avoid the gender-specific thing as small children with much more ease. Nature/nurture is far from settled for me. Best A >At 09:29 AM 5/6/02 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote: >>I too am uncomfortable... I know too many "exceptions". > >I too know mostly "exceptions." Self-respecting women >of any intelligence don't allow *unexceptional* men >within their circle of friends, or within ten yards if they >can help it. So one can't rely on one's intimates for >any clear idea of what's out there. Think of the "men" >who watch "Professional Wrestling" on TV, the >eagerness with which they ogle scantily-clad "bimbos," >and the misogynist culture surrounding strip clubs, >brothels, and other male-centered "industries" exploiting >the sexual appearance and/or labor of women. > >That's where you begin to discern the "average man." >He isn't pretty, he isn't articulate, and he isn't nice. > >Professional wrestling is the hottest item on TV, and >wildly popular with advertisers, because it targets the >large majority of young men, "mooks," in advertising >parlance, whose decisions will drive the purchases >of the next generation. And men *do* drive those >purchases. "Date" movies are "guy" movies, since >women will "go along" while men (for the most part) >wouldn't walk into a "chick flick" if Britney Spears >was waiting on the other side of the lobby door. >(Well, maybe then... but she'd have to be naked) > >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/script.html > >The interesting part of these definitions is that a >mook is defined by his behavior, churlish, stupid, >and self-centered. A midriff, on the other hand, is >defined by her sexual availability, or at least the >*appearance* of availability through sexual display. >Freud didn't have to ask, "What do *men* really >want?" because it's usually painfully obvious. > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:57:56 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 7:25 PM -0600 5/5/02, PAT MATHEWS wrote: >Wait a minute. Isn't he the guy who wrote a book about a Frenchman who >killed an Arab for kicks & giggles? That must be about the most reductive description of Camus that I've ever read! Neither kicks nor giggles, as I recall, The Outsider ain't Natural Born Killers. The character didn't know why he did it. Much more disturbing. Read more carefully, you might find a few ways into thinking about the problems of masculinity, its radical alienations from being and their murderous consequences. Ever tried reading any of his arguments against capital punishment? Or (though I don't necessarily agree with everything he says) his essays on the situation in Algeria? Yes, a few problems around women, a few things to productively argue with. But still one of the more interesting moralists of our time, imho, and well worth reading at this er interesting point of history. Best A -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 21:19:32 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:47 AM 5/6/02 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote: >I get your point indeed. I have in fact many examples of >unattractive masculinity set before me every day. But I still feel >very uncomfortable with the deterministic flavour of the argument; >these articulations of masculinity are not necessarily inevitable, >unarguable though they are in fact. Seems to me also that social >conditioning clicks in much earlier than with boys than with girls, >who can avoid the gender-specific thing as small children with much >more ease. Nature/nurture is far from settled for me. I'm quite sure they're not *inevitable*, on an individual basis at least, in that it's actually fairly easy to find exceptions. I do believe that they're common, however, as distressing as that might be, and unavoidable in any largish population of males. Surprisingly, the experiment has been made with real boys in real life. Sonia Johnson, the woman who wrote "The Ship That Sailed Into the Living Room" and "Going Out of Our Minds," as well as "From Housewife to Heretic," describes her experience on lesbian land. Despite the situation, the young children of the women on the land were not denied residency on account of sex and a very committed non-sexist, non-violent curricula was in place to ensure the very best sort of behavior on the part of the children. All by themselves, two young boys, aged 11 and 13 as I recall, but I could be wrong, decided to "invent" rape and sexually assaulted a very young girl. Johnson was convinced by this that the impulse to violence and rape was inherent in at least some males, no matter what sort of care and education they'd received as children. Physiologically, this makes perfect sense as the areas in the brain that control sex and violence are right next to each other. And although it seems from the evidence offered in Sapolsky's book, "The Trouble with Testosterone," that hormones aren't the entire answer, it appears to be part of the answer. Testosterone doesn't make men stupid; it doesn't make them violent all by itself; but it makes men *prone* to violence when they think they can get away with it. They can pretty much get away with it with women and in certain situations. Everybody knows this, really, but most of us have agreed not to think about it. In surveys, between a quarter to one third of college men agreed that they would force a woman to have sex with them if they were sure they wouldn't be caught or punished. These are intelligent, educated men, mind you. The only thing standing between most women and rape is the fear most men have of getting caught and going to jail. In wartime, or any situation in which the chances of being brought to justice are infinitesimal, the incidence of rape increases enormously. Let's be generous; on average, one in four of the men we date would *like* to rape us, and perhaps may, but is deterred only by the thought that he might go to jail. Now isn't *that* a cheery thought? One fifth of battered women report that, after beating them bloody, their boyfriends or husbands were so aroused that they figured that raping them was the perfectly natural denouement to the encounter. This appears to demonstrate the link between violence and sex in at least one group of men quite effectively. And contrary to popular belief, rapists are not abnormal perverts. Most are perfectly normal guys; most have wives or girlfriends and seemingly satisfactory sexual relationships. They rape "for the fun of it," not because they're horny. Some boys are bullies and even bullies aren't stupid. They choose smaller boys or girls to pick on, and will probably wind up raping *someone*, if the opportunity arises. This is not to say that every boy is a bully, or even wants to be, but most woman with any dating experience of men has been in at least one slightly uncomfortable situation, and many (between one in five to one in four) have been raped or assaulted, whether they've been willing to call it that or not. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 01:01:19 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Nick Bromley Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'm quite sure they're not *inevitable*, on an individual basis at > least, in that it's actually fairly easy to find exceptions. I do > believe that they're common, however, as distressing as that > might be, and unavoidable in any largish population of males. > Surprisingly, the experiment has been made with real boys in > real life. You're entirely correct in saying that they're common. As a 21 year old male, I've been in the presence of all sorts of guys, and in my experience conversations among men consist almost exclusively of tales of sexual conquest. The things one hears are revolting, in that women are spoken of entirely as objects of pleasure. In high school, if I asked someone what they thought of a girl, the response would invariably be, "oh she's pretty good looking" and nothing more, when in fact I wanted to know what they thought of her, not her body. I hated high school. and then I find that things don't change much in college. > Sonia Johnson, the woman who wrote "The Ship That Sailed > Into the Living Room" and "Going Out of Our Minds," as well > as "From Housewife to Heretic," describes her experience on > lesbian land. Despite the situation, the young children of the > women on the land were not denied residency on account of > sex and a very committed non-sexist, non-violent curricula > was in place to ensure the very best sort of behavior on the > part of the children. All by themselves, two young boys, aged > 11 and 13 as I recall, but I could be wrong, decided to "invent" > rape and sexually assaulted a very young girl. Johnson was > convinced by this that the impulse to violence and rape was > inherent in at least some males, no matter what sort of > care and education they'd received as children. > Physiologically, this makes perfect sense as the areas in > the brain that control sex and violence are right next to each > other. And although it seems from the evidence offered in > Sapolsky's book, "The Trouble with Testosterone," that > hormones aren't the entire answer, it appears to be part > of the answer. Testosterone doesn't make men stupid; it > doesn't make them violent all by itself; but it makes men > *prone* to violence when they think they can get away with it. Prone to violence . . . definitely. I'd still like to think that violence is not "unavoidable in any largish population of males." I think that in a society better than ours (much better), with proper socialization, the commonality of violent tendencies (sexual and otherwise) in men could be reduced to the point that they would become the exception. On the other hand, with little or no guidance, it seems very likely that those violent tendencies would emerge on their own in the average male, to varying degrees. The fact of physiology can't be eliminated, but I believe that culture can act as a very effective (if not entirely so) counter to it. There will nonetheless be deviants, such as those Johnson identified. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on this, do you know of studies of other cultures where gender constructions differ from those in the U.S.? Unfortunately, since most of the cultures of the Americas (where European influence could at one time have been ruled out) have been destroyed over the past several hundred years, there aren't exactly many cultures for comparison anymore. > They can pretty much get away with it with women and in > certain situations. Everybody knows this, really, but most > of us have agreed not to think about it. In surveys, between > a quarter to one third of college men agreed that they would > force a woman to have sex with them if they were sure they > wouldn't be caught or punished. These are intelligent, > educated men, mind you. The only thing standing between > most women and rape is the fear most men have of getting > caught and going to jail. In wartime, or any situation in which > the chances of being brought to justice are infinitesimal, > the incidence of rape increases enormously. That survey doesn't surprise me at all. Nor would I be surprised to hear that nearly a quarter of college men had at some point forced themselves on a woman in some way, even if they didn't consider it "forceful". > This is not to say that every boy is a bully, or even wants to be, > but most woman with any dating experience of men has been in at > least one slightly uncomfortable situation, and many (between one > in five to one in four) have been raped or assaulted, whether > they've been willing to call it that or not. And I know several women who were assaulted or raped. The depressing thing for me is that they continue to go out with guys of the same type, no matter what anyone says. And in the college environment, the aggressive men remain the ones who attract the most women. Sigh. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:47:03 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Priscilla H. Ballou" Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rachel Wild wrote: > How do we get past this one? In Suzzette Elgin's 'Native tongue' the > linguist women ... when they make the final leap and start to teach > Ladan to the kids... believe that this alone will create a break in > the perceptual loop [I'm more sceptical]. In 'Door into Ocean' the > main male character [I forget his name] becomes 'feminist'... in this > context fully adult... by living in a one gender society. > [interestingly because of his class he cannot go back and forth > between the invading elite like Nissi the Deciever does]... In 'Walk > to the ends of the world/ motherlines' we have simultaneously two sets > of women in contrast - the recently-free and the free-for-generations > who live their gender very differently. Does anyone know of books > where there is a narrative about male gender-oppression refusniks? > [there are the Gentles in 'the Wanderground' but they are just a bit > mythical] Something in my dim memory is saying that there were men who worked with the "women in the know" (elders? It's been a long time since I read the book) in Tepper's _Gate to Women's Country_. Can anyone confirm or correct me on that? Priscilla -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 02:18:49 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: <002b01c1f4c3$87491bc0$0300a8c0@austin.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:01 AM 5/6/02 -0500, Nick Bromley wrote: > > I'm quite sure they're not *inevitable*, on an individual basis at > > least, in that it's actually fairly easy to find exceptions. I do > > believe that they're common, however, as distressing as that > > might be, and unavoidable in any largish population of males. > > Surprisingly, the experiment has been made with real boys in > > real life. > >You're entirely correct in saying that they're common. As a 21 year old >male, I've been in the presence of all sorts of guys, and in my experience >conversations among men consist almost exclusively of tales of sexual >conquest. The things one hears are revolting, in that women are spoken of >entirely as objects of pleasure. In high school, if I asked someone what >they thought of a girl, the response would invariably be, "oh she's pretty >good looking" and nothing more, when in fact I wanted to know what they >thought of her, not her body. I hated high school. and then I find that >things don't change much in college. You might be interested in John Stoltenberg's "Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice" and "The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of Conscience." He has a interesting and non-violent approach to masculinity and names himself a pro-feminist, which seems appropriate. http://www.echonyc.com/~onissues/male.htm > > Physiologically, this makes perfect sense as the areas in > > the brain that control sex and violence are right next to each > > other. And although it seems from the evidence offered in > > Sapolsky's book, "The Trouble with Testosterone," that > > hormones aren't the entire answer, it appears to be part > > of the answer. Testosterone doesn't make men stupid; it > > doesn't make them violent all by itself; but it makes men > > *prone* to violence when they think they can get away with it. > >Prone to violence . . . definitely. I'd still like to think that violence >is not "unavoidable in any largish population of males." I think that in a >society better than ours (much better), with proper socialization, the >commonality of violent tendencies (sexual and otherwise) in men could be >reduced to the point that they would become the exception. On the other >hand, with little or no guidance, it seems very likely that those violent >tendencies would emerge on their own in the average male, to varying >degrees. The fact of physiology can't be eliminated, but I believe that >culture can act as a very effective (if not entirely so) counter to it. >There will nonetheless be deviants, such as those Johnson identified. > >Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on this, do you know of studies of >other cultures where gender constructions differ from those in the U.S.? >Unfortunately, since most of the cultures of the Americas (where European >influence could at one time have been ruled out) have been destroyed over >the past several hundred years, there aren't exactly many cultures for >comparison anymore. I don't. In fact, I would doubt that there has been all that much attention paid to other cultures as the historical and cultural data just isn't there to support deep research. Even within our own culture, it's clear that we have advanced considerably in the space of a few hundred years. It's no longer legal to beat one's wife, even with a stick "no bigger around than one's thumb." If a woman is raped, she is no longer required to marry her rapist, as happened to Artemesia Gentileschi when she was raped at the age of 18 by Agostino Tassi, her art teacher, in the 1600's. He did spend a short time in prison, but his defense was that she was a licentious woman and asked for it, of course: http://www.altfic.com/subtextfic/buffy/prp/susannah.htm http://www.italystl.com/italianclub/rondine/ronjun01.htm So in that sense, we form our own control group. It should be noted that this requirement is biblical, and has a history of many thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian context. But this was in itself an advance of previous legislation, which made being raped a capital offense, so in that sense Artemisia was "lucky." > > educated men, mind you. The only thing standing between > > most women and rape is the fear most men have of getting > > caught and going to jail. In wartime, or any situation in which > > the chances of being brought to justice are infinitesimal, > > the incidence of rape increases enormously. > >That survey doesn't surprise me at all. Nor would I be surprised to hear >that nearly a quarter of college men had at some point forced themselves on >a woman in some way, even if they didn't consider it "forceful". Actually, the statistics get more depressing when you start to include men with lower levels of education. Over all men, and after priming them by a sample of pornography involving violence which implies that women "really want it," the incidence of men who will admit that they would force a woman to have sex with them rises to two out of three. Presumably then, education does count for *something*. > > This is not to say that every boy is a bully, or even wants to be, > > but most woman with any dating experience of men has been in at > > least one slightly uncomfortable situation, and many (between one > > in five to one in four) have been raped or assaulted, whether > > they've been willing to call it that or not. > >And I know several women who were assaulted or raped. The depressing thing >for me is that they continue to go out with guys of the same type, no matter >what anyone says. And in the college environment, the aggressive men remain >the ones who attract the most women. Sigh. Although I know this is a common complaint of men with dating problems, I'm not sure that it's the entire answer. It's not just women, it's almost everybody, from the guys who write James Bond scripts for the movies, to the Magnificent Seven, to the Superhero comics, to most popular men's genre literature, you find relatively meek men, writers and "nerds," creating and "selling" an ideal image of masculinity that doesn't include themselves. Even Thomas Crown, the James Bond incarnation who doesn't actually kill people, seems a bit dangerous and impossibly powerful in a charismatic monetary way. He-man dolls for boys aren't created by women (or I don't *think* they are), they aren't sold by women-owned corporations. They simply sell well to boys. Spiderman may be angst-ridden, but he *is* a superhuman being capable of vanquishing a room full of villains in the twinkling of an eye and, belying his slender frame, is enormously strong, able to hurl cars into the air and that sort of thing. Edited from The Vampire's Violin by Michael Romkey: > The vampire took a sip of wine and looked more > closely into Juliana's mind. It was easy. She was > relaxed and open, as guileless as a flower waiting > in the garden to be picked. > > The vampire smiled. > He had an uncanny ability to choose women > who would please him in the several ways he > cared about most. > > He lost himself for a moment, floating away > in a reverie, in blissful anticipation of a sonata > of soft skin, whispered kisses, and blood. > Juliana looked away from her friends. Her > fawn's eyes roamed around the room until > they settled on his. He could feel her looking > at him, sitting there with his eyes closed, lost > in a dream. > > Come, my darling, he willed wordlessly in > the sweetened darkness of his mind. Note that this vampire has the ability to read women's minds, force them to have sex with him *and* drink their blood, quite possibly killing them. The process of killing his victims is described with loving eroticism. Hmmm. I find this sort of rape/murder fantasy both disturbing and distasteful, yet he is one of the most popular male authors in this genre. But vampirism is here seen as the ultimate date rape drug, and women are both sexual plaything and (horrible to contemplate!) food. Presumably, men are expected to find this sort of thing compelling. But strangely enough, he has many female fans as well. When you add to that the voice of women's romance literature, at least some of which idealizes the manly man who "loses control" when confronted by the beauty and purity of the heroine, it's a wonder that anyone other than Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alikes *ever* gets a date. From Christine Feehan's steamy vampire fantasy romance novel, Dark Guardian: > A shadow fell across the bed and her heart slammed > hard enough to cause her pain and she realized the > sound had come from her own chest. Jaxon slowly > turned her head. A man was standing over her. Very > tall, powerful. A predator. She saw that instantly. She > had seen many predators, but this one was the ultimate. > There was something in his complete stillness. A waiting. > A confidence. It was in the very stillness itself. A power. > A danger. He was dangerous. More dangerous than > anyone she had encountered so far. She didn't know > how she knew these things, but she did. He believed > himself invincible and she had a sneaking suspicion > that he just might be. He was neither old nor young. > It was impossible to tell his true age. His eyes were > old. Black and emotionless. Empty eyes. His mouth > was very sensual, erotic really, his teeth very white. > He was handsome and sexy. More than sexy. > Completely hot. This novel is trashy but revealing, and typifies a genre which elevates male sexual aggression to sensuality, and a mere prelude to courtship and marriage. Katie Roiphe would simply *love* this book. In this fantasy world, the males are dangerous predators who may at any time turn into murderous monsters, but can be saved by means of a nice home-cooked meal and the love of a good woman. And in favor of *these* vampires, they don't actually kill people unless they fail to find their ideal woman, the one with the home-cooked meal, in which case all bets are off. http://www.christinefeehan.com/dark_guardian/chapter1.html The ability of women to deny the obvious in the face of "experts" and a culture which demands that we ignore the danger doesn't seem all that surprising. In The Gate to Women's Country we see the women who take the propaganda at face value and who can blame them, really? -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 02:29:32 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205060102.174ADp1053Nl3sj0@runyon.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT PAT MATHEWS wrote: > A third example is the woman who put out a book saying it doesn't > really harm kids to have sex with adults. This pleases the teenagers > in love whose hormones are raging hot, as well as those attracted to > such teenagers, let alone the real pedophiles. Have you actually read Judith Levine's book _Harmful to Minors_? What she is talking about is the harm caused our current attitudes towards teens and sex. Saying she is in any way promoting pedophilia is inaccurate and is a an argument that is being widely used to dismiss the points she makes. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 02:29:32 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Native Tongue Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205060102.174ADp1053Nl3sj0@runyon.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > Specifically, women are far better at looking at pictures (or people > in real time) and deducing what emotions are being expressed. For > example, in the MEIS (see Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), women > correctly identify underlying emotions from facial expressions far > more easily than men do, on average. It's been postulated that women's > abilities in this regard are facilitated by a greater connection > between the two hemispheres of the brain, notably in the corpus > collosum, which anatomical structure differs between the two sexes in > the same way that other anatomical structures do. While the above data is to the best of my knowledge correct, the interpretation you mentioned is yet another example of bad social science. I have seen multiple studies citing how women have larger & or more complex corpus collosums than men and an equal number citing the reverse. I had a friend when I was in grad school who kept a notebook of clipping of articles citing opposite conclusions about studies in gender and psychology (ie one article which cited that men's corpus collosums were larger, the other that cities the reverse, for a great many subjects). This was the most eloquent proof of the overall inaccuracy of the vast majority of such studies I've ever seen. My partner has done a great deal of work in communication and the most reasonable theory (backed up by a good bit of interesting data) is that such abilities more important to members of any group that is mostly subordinate in the power structure. Members of subordinate groups need to be able to discern nuances of behavior and emotion far more clearly than people in positions of power, so the members of such groups hone such skills. Looking for biological explanations first, when cultural ones will suffice is *far* to common in modern social science. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 02:39:13 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Native Tongue Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205060102.174ADp1053Nl3sj0@runyon.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lee Anne Phillips > Most people find no difficulty accepting the fact that male and female > anatomy differs, on average, despite a certain amount of ambiguous > overlap. In fact, these differences have been embodied in law, > religious belief, and custom throughout recorded history. Not to > mention "common sense." > > The brain differences are quite regular, on the whole, although there > has been intriguing research recently that seems to indicate that some > gay men, in particular, are more likely to exhibit some brain > structures and patterns of thought that are more characteristic of > females. Have you actually read any of the studies about gay men having "feminine brains"? In addition to making utterly unwarranted assumptions about homosexuality, all of the studies I've seen have been complete and utter nonsense. My favorite was the one that involved studying brains of recently deceased men. The "gay" brains where chosen solely from men who had died from aids (the researcher assumed that this would guarantee that the subjects were actually gay). Needless to say the fact that terminal aids often has profound effects of brain tissue was completely neglected. Add in the small sample size and you have a study that makes fatally flawed late 19th century study that "proved" that black people had smaller brains than white people [1] look like a marvel of careful research. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com [1] beautifully described and demolished in Steven J. Gould's excellent book _The Mismeasure of Man_ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 02:45:03 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: WLM and men Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <3CD32176.4B41022E@verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:47 PM 5/3/02 -0400, Priscilla H. Ballou wrote: > > who live their gender very differently. Does anyone know of books > > where there is a narrative about male gender-oppression refusniks? > > [there are the Gentles in 'the Wanderground' but they are just a bit > > mythical] > >Something in my dim memory is saying that there were men who worked with >the "women in the know" (elders? It's been a long time since I read the >book) in Tepper's _Gate to Women's Country_. Can anyone confirm or >correct me on that? The servitors (or at least some of them) were in on the secret in Gate and are the real fathers of the babies supposedly sired by Warriors. Additionally, such refusniks are a commonplace in lesbian-feminist utopias (at least the ones that don't invent miraculous cloning) for the sake of species survival. Diana Rivers Hadra stories come to mind, where the lesbian women meet the Wanderer men from time to time and make babies. All very friendly and non-involved. Perhaps almost as mythic as Wanderground, but the problem of reproduction is always difficult. I don't remember exactly how the women in Stewart's Return to Isis SF series handled this, but they definitely had separate little city-state enclaves of lesbians, gay men, and mellow heterosexuals tidily separated by preference. In fact, the lesbian horsewomen in the Charnas Furies trilogy, lately increased by one, have an "arrangement" with some wandering guys as well as I recall. Starhawk's Fifth Sacred Thing would also be germane, and (in heterosexual feminist utopias) Gilman's Herland, LeGuin's The Dispossessed and Always Coming Home for that matter, and Slonczewski's A Door Into Ocean. The key to many of these stories seems to be that we are post-apocalypse and all the machineries of the state have been swept away, which saves an enormous amount of effort explaining what happened to the old order. Unless they keep the old order around for periodic dramatic confrontations of course. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 20:56:34 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <002b01c1f4c3$87491bc0$0300a8c0@austin.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I believe testosterone _does_ make men stupid - wasn't there some research recently which established that as a fact? But not all men are stupid, and not all men rape, even when circumstances dictate they ought to (I remember some horrifying stories of the raping of women during the civil war in Sarajevo, told by one of the victims, including a story of a young man whose penis was cut off when he refused to participate). Likewise, not all women are soft, nurturing and non-violent. Trying to avoid simplicities here, because it seems to me an issue beset with infinite complexities. But all the same, diving in headfirst, it occurs to me that a small boy (or girl) who sees the most powerful woman in his/her life, the mother, treated as an inferior being, they will inevitably absorb the lesson subliminally. If the mother responds to her inferior situation with actions of passive aggression, or the other means of exerting power resorted to by the powerless, this will only confirm it; and lead to all sorts of vengefulness on all parts, mostly covert. This situation has the particular vir-tue of being self-perpetuating. I've seen too many women using the stance of victim to in fact bully others (particularly other women) to feel sanguine about any aspect of familial conditioning. Like everything else, equality begins at home... At 9:19 PM -0700 5/5/02, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >Sonia Johnson, the woman who wrote "The Ship That Sailed >Into the Living Room" and "Going Out of Our Minds," as well >as "From Housewife to Heretic," describes her experience on >lesbian land. Despite the situation, the young children of the >women on the land were not denied residency on account of >sex and a very committed non-sexist, non-violent curricula >was in place to ensure the very best sort of behavior on the >part of the children. All by themselves, two young boys, aged >11 and 13 as I recall, but I could be wrong, decided to "invent" >rape and sexually assaulted a very young girl. Johnson was >convinced by this that the impulse to violence and rape was >inherent in at least some males, no matter what sort of >care and education they'd received as children. This strikes me as an awfully sad story. I'm afraid it doesn't surprise me. Young pubescent boys tend to be confused at the best of times. If they were raised with assumptions which, however well intended, projected a negative image of masculinity (aggressive, sexually predatory, to be feared and avoided) and without positive roles of maleness to balance it - I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, there were no men there - such behaviour wouldn't be unexpected. And perhaps there is an confused expression of revenge for being "wrong", because they couldn't help being male. A role model of a violent sexist man is no better of course. Sorry for going on without referring to SFF, just got interested... Best Alison -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 07:12:27 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Nick Bromley Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Although I know this is a common complaint of men with > dating problems, I'm not sure that it's the entire answer. > It's not just women, it's almost everybody, from the guys > who write James Bond scripts for the movies, to the > Magnificent Seven, to the Superhero comics, to most > popular men's genre literature, you find relatively meek > men, writers and "nerds," creating and "selling" an ideal > image of masculinity that doesn't include themselves. > Even Thomas Crown, the James Bond incarnation who > doesn't actually kill people, seems a bit dangerous > and impossibly powerful in a charismatic monetary way. > > He-man dolls for boys aren't created by women (or I don't > *think* they are), they aren't sold by women-owned > corporations. They simply sell well to boys. Spiderman may > be angst-ridden, but he *is* a superhuman being capable > of vanquishing a room full of villains in the twinkling of > an eye and, belying his slender frame, is enormously > strong, able to hurl cars into the air and that sort of thing. I'm sorry if I implied that it was "just women". I realize this is an extremely complex issue that involves social dynamics that no individual can totally grasp. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:04:03 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rachel Wild wrote: > Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of > you will have noticed the recent upsurge in theories like > 'why men can't iron' basically a big upswing in biological > determinism. A lot of the new determinism uses > endrochronology - the study of hormones, pheromones etc. > and theories of 'brain sex'. > > I came across this study [now lost to me] from feminist > endrochronologists who proposed that behaviour determines > nature [i.e. hormonal response]. The example being that > carrying out a sexual assault may raise men's testosterone > levels ... rather that testosterone making this behaviour > more likely. This blew me away! ... Well, I'm a Quaker and have walked the peaceful path for some decades now, but my partner will testify that I'm showing no signs of lack of testosterone! :) Biological determinism is such a seductive idea, because it tends to excuse people from responsibility for their behavioral choices, their child-rearing choices, etc. I tend to approach it with extreme skepticism. -- Michael J. Lowrey a Friendly sort -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:07:13 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Laura J. Mixon" wrote: > > on 5/3/02 5:03 AM, John Snead at sneadj@MINDSPRING.COM wrote: > > That reminds me, has anyone else here ever read a little known > > novel by Phyllis Ann Karr _At Amberleaf Fair_? It was an > > interesting and remarkably humane fantasy novel involving a > > criminal investigation at a great trade fair. The most wonderful part > > was that one of the main characters is not given a gender. I noticed > > this fact about a third of the way through the novel and reread it > > carefully, and there wasn't a single pronoun or other indicator. This > > is done very subtlely, and I loved it. I've always been curious as to > > how many other readers noticed this fact. > > I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer > Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same > thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince myself > that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. Yep, that was Marion. She wrote later stories about the character where the reader is in on the secret, and she [Marion] doesn't have to dance so carefully; but it was still a bravura performance. (I won't name the character, the story, the later collection of the stories, or the shared universe it appeared in, so as not to be a spoiler.) -- "Orange Mike" -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:26:34 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PAT MATHEWS wrote: > > >From: Cynthia > >John, > > > > >So the real question is, why are publishers and other forms of the media so > >willing to give huge publicity to false and at times dangerously erroneous > >ideas and not to the true findings? > > > >Cynthia > > > Two reasons: Because it sells, and sells big, especially if it generates > controversy without really attacking our basic beliefs. And, because it > confirms a lot of people's folk beliefs or offers them an attractive > alternative. Parents not responsible for their childrens' behavior? That > lets ME off the hook! Either for trying harder, or for the fact that the kid > came out dead opposite to everything I am and stand for. > > A third example is the woman who put out a book saying it doesn't really > harm kids to have sex with adults. This pleases the teenagers in love whose > hormones are raging hot, as well as those attracted to such teenagers, let > alone the real pedophiles. If you're talking about Judith Levine's new book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex", with foreword by Dr. Joycelyn M. Elders, I suggest you actually read the book, because that isn't what she says AT ALL. Hers is a very thoughtful, nuanced, feminist examination of the bizarre way we treat adolescent sexuality in this country; but the rightwingers are already trying to get the book suppressed, and her editors fired, for even talking about the subject. Every parent and every feminist, "sex-positive" or otherwise, should see what she has to say. http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html -- Michael J. Lowrey Sunrise Book Reviews -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:25:30 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sarah Caudwell did that in her 4 mystery novels. We never find out if = Hilary the Don is male or female--a delightful, witty series of British = mysteries. Marsha Valance Regional Librarian Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells St. Milwaukee, WI 53233 1.800.242.8822 [in-state] >>> ljm@DIGITALNOIR.COM 05/03/02 07:57PM >>> on 5/3/02 5:03 AM, John Snead at sneadj@MINDSPRING.COM wrote: > Laura J. Mixon" wrote: > >> I wish non-gendered pronouns would catch on in English. I'm trying to >> use them in my current series and I'm going to stick to my guns on >> this, but they definitely don't flow easily off the brain. > > Congrats, I look forward to seeing it. Thanks. I'm really enjoying writing it. One of the races is a set of non-gendered shapeshifters. >"They" works quite well for > me as a non-gendered pronoun, but I know a number of people > don't like it. I'm trying sie and hir, for now. Given that in most of my books I've done something funky with names and/or pronouns, I figure maybe my readership will tolerate it. > That reminds me, has anyone else here ever read a little known > novel by Phyllis Ann Karr _At Amberleaf Fair_? It was an > interesting and remarkably humane fantasy novel involving a > criminal investigation at a great trade fair. The most wonderful part > was that one of the main characters is not given a gender. I noticed > this fact about a third of the way through the novel and reread it > carefully, and there wasn't a single pronoun or other indicator. This > is done very subtlely, and I loved it. I've always been curious as to > how many other readers noticed this fact. I haven't read this one, but I read a great short story by Marion Zimmer Bradley once, I believe, in a shared universe story, that did the same thing. Delightful. I had to go back and re-read it just to convince = myself that she'd really pulled it off without me noticing. -l. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:31:20 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret Poore wrote: > 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: > female authors, male authors, neither, or both? I have mostly quit reading > male authors. the main exceptions are Scott Card I hope you are aware that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and patriarchalist? He is a devout Mormon, who has called for anti-gay legislation to stay on the books, so that society sends the message to "those people" that their behavior is not acceptable and not normal. http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/orson_scott_card_hates.html -- Michael J. Lowrey likes some of his writing disgusted by what he wrote in that article -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:49:40 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19b.1d55402.2a07e3f4_boundary" --part1_19b.1d55402.2a07e3f4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "such abilities more important to members of any group that is mostly subordinate in the power structure. Members of subordinate groups need to be able to discern nuances of behaviour and emotion far more clearly than people in positions of power, so the members of such groups hone such skills." I find this explanation very plausible ... this may explain why gay-men develop such skills better than het-men for example. Mixed with other points in recent postings it has occurred to me to question why women, equiped with advanced skills in reading behaviour, do not seen 'empowed' to take evasive actions when endangered. e.g. by men aiming for date-rape [do men develop skills in *masking* such motivations? do media imaged doublethink such signifiers into safe or even attractive signals?] On this point several feminists [inc. Liz Stanley/ Sue Wise] have explored the emotional/ psychological 'trauma' women go through in developing a feminist consciousness - developing a kind of reasonable 'paranoia' through reconstructing/ relearning to correctly read such signals in a culture that emphasises the 'madness' of such conclusions. [ I for one find living any kind of bearable life involves, currently, a series of compromises about how feminist I allow my consciousness to get] ByeBye Rachel --part1_19b.1d55402.2a07e3f4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "such abilities  more important to members of any group
that is mostly subordinate in the power structure.  Members of
subordinate groups need to be able to discern nuances of behaviour
and emotion far more clearly than people in positions of power, so
the members of such groups hone such skills."

I find this explanation very plausible ... this may explain why gay-men develop such skills better than het-men for example.
Mixed with other points in recent postings it has occurred to me to question why women, equiped with advanced skills in reading behaviour, do not seen 'empowed' to take evasive actions when endangered. e.g. by men aiming for date-rape [do men develop skills in *masking* such motivations? do media imaged doublethink such signifiers into safe or even attractive signals?]
On this point several feminists [inc. Liz Stanley/ Sue Wise] have explored the emotional/ psychological 'trauma' women go through in developing a feminist consciousness - developing a kind of reasonable 'paranoia' through reconstructing/ relearning to correctly read such signals in a culture that emphasises the 'madness' of such conclusions. [ I for one find living any kind of bearable life involves, currently, a series of compromises about how feminist I allow my consciousness to get]

ByeBye
Rachel --part1_19b.1d55402.2a07e3f4_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:02:56 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: male gender refusniks Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2b.26c0cd97.2a07e710_boundary" --part1_2b.26c0cd97.2a07e710_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for all the suggestions on this topic. After I asked the question Fifth sacred thing [wow a whole city of refuseniks...] occurred to me - the whole issue being central to the premise of the book. In the Hadra books is there any explanation of the choices made by these wandering men? [I have only been able to acquire Sair of Samasi (?) and only remember the village men] - are the wanderers a male-only set? are they singular or social? Ok new question ... are there known gender-oppression refusniks in any male authored Sci-Fi [a la Stoltenburg perhaps?] Thanks ByeBye Rachel --part1_2b.26c0cd97.2a07e710_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for all the suggestions on this topic. After I asked the question Fifth sacred thing [wow a whole city of refuseniks...] occurred to me - the whole issue being central to the premise of the book.
In the Hadra books is there any explanation of the choices made by these wandering men? [I have only been able to acquire Sair of Samasi (?) and only remember the village men] - are the wanderers a male-only set? are they singular or social?

Ok new question ... are there known gender-oppression refusniks in any male authored Sci-Fi [a la Stoltenburg perhaps?]

Thanks
ByeBye
Rachel --part1_2b.26c0cd97.2a07e710_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:56:39 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Frances Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Margaret Poore wrote: > > > 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: > > female authors, male authors, neither, or both? Not SF (except perhaps Eva, though many are fantasy) but I'd like to put in a word for Peter Dickinson (The Weathermonger, etc), especially his later work. Frances -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:19:09 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Melissa Bowersock Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <121.106036b7.2a047a2b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 07:41 PM 5/3/2002 EDT, you wrote:=20 >>>> Melissa asked...=20 Am I hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some=20 time at the altar of 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a=20 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and nurture.=20 Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of you will have noticed the recent upsurge in theories like 'why men can't iron' basically a big upswing in biological determinism. A lot of the new determinism uses endrochronology - the study of hormones, pheromones etc. and theories of 'brain sex'.=20 I came across this study [now lost to me] from feminist endrochronologists who proposed that behaviour determines nature [i.e. hormonal response]. The example being that carrying out a sexual assault may raise men's testosterone levels ... rather that testosterone making this behaviour more likely. This blew me away! ... I certainly notice my own hormonal levels changing according to my circumstances and environment ... my suspicion is that nature/nurture are in some kind of eternal feedback loop...but I'm unsure of genetic influence [for I fear centuries of sexual selection of passive and tiny mates for alpha males will have left women in a hopeless position ... but don't seem to have observed it among the strapping lasses of Lancashire]=20 ByeBye=20 Rachel=20 At 8:03 PM -0400 3/5/02, Lou Hoffman wrote: The duality of gender is a social construct as well. I feel terribly ambiguous :) about this - because I can't wholly agree, much as I would like to. Sex is not wholly invented; despite androgynities which occur in the human spectrum, there is very broadly a marked physical difference between male and female. The relationship between male and female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical.=20 I am not at all surprised by the hormonal/behavioural theory, because a similar notion has often occured to me: and I am totally against the "hard wire" determinists, which seem to me like 19C social theorists all over again, only worse - they misrepresent their own science anyway -=20 Best=20 Alison=20 When Alison says "The relationship between male and female constructs, physical being and social behaviours seem to me to be incredibly complex, but you can't ignore the physical," I have to agree. I think as much as we would like to think we could rise above and overcome any instinctive tendancies, it might be more difficult than we believe. I was struck by this years ago when reading Richard Leakey's "People of the Lake." In an effort to build a picture of the culture of australopithicus (admittedly a subjective and self-perpetuating effort), he discussed behaviors of animals that were *probably* present in the early humans, i.e. that a male lion was apt to kill any cubs that weren't his in order to give his own progeny more chance at survival (think abusive step-fathers), and that female animals with young were witnessed resorting to prostitution to hook up with a food-providing male (think desperate single moms). I'm not saying this behavior is either hard-wired or unavoidable (I sure hope not!), but for the at least another couple thousand years, we are still physical beings with a lot of instinctive leftover paraphenalia in our makeup, and we may have less "free will" than we think we do. Ignoring or denying an unpleasant possibility only leaves us open to having it come up and bite us in the ass when we're not looking. Melissa Bowersock http://www.newmoonrising.net =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 18:33:12 +0200 Reply-To: Thomas Gramstad Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Feminist science fiction? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020503093027.02ceb7a0@orion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 May 2002, Melissa Bowersock wrote: [John Snead :] >> I imagine my objection to McCaffrey in essence comes down to the >> fact that I object to any sort of separate but equal treatment of sex >> and gender issues, in large part because like Sarah Young, I also >> find a simply binary model of sex and gender to be *far* too limited, >> and my reading as an anthropologist has firmly convinced me that >> there are no behaviors or emotional reactions that belong solely to >> one sex or gender. > I agree that there are no behaviors or emotional reactions that > belong *solely* to one sex or gender, however I am beginning to > wonder if we are arguing nature vs. nurture here. Some of what > I'm hearing almost sounds to me as if folks believe we are born > blank slates and we only acquire imprints from our culture. Am I > hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some time at the altar of > 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a 50-50 > arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and nurture. There is a difference between arguing nature/nurture and arguing that all men are biologically the same and all women are biologically the same. Biology does not have to (and in fact, does not) support sex stereotypes; biologically-based differences are just as individual as other differences. http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/real-biology.html http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/vive-les-differences.html Thomas Gramstad thomas@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:29:15 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: male gender refusniks Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <2b.26c0cd97.2a07e710@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:02 AM 5/6/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >Thanks for all the suggestions on this topic. After I asked the question >Fifth sacred thing [wow a whole city of refuseniks...] occurred to me - >the whole issue being central to the premise of the book. >In the Hadra books is there any explanation of the choices made by these >wandering men? [I have only been able to acquire Sair of Samasi (?) and >only remember the village men] - are the wanderers a male-only set? are >they singular or social? They are a mixed group of traders who are free of the sort of anti-sexual bias popular among the right-wing, are equally open to relationships with any gender, practice free love before marriage, and have taken an oath of non-violence and non-coercion in both interpersonal and societal relationships. If they are injured by anyone, they simply refuse to trade with them, which is very uncomfortable for the people who harmed them. The have a monopoly on trade because there are other societies which are actively inimical to outsiders, other than the Wanderers, and attack any unauthorized group of traders attempting to pass through their respective territories. The three older books are available on the Web, at: http://www.hadrabooks.com/ and the two new ones are available at Bella Books: http://www.bellabooks.com/ Red Line of Yarmald, the second new one, is forthcoming, although it is complete. Your local independent bookstore should be able to order them without trouble. Journey to Zelindar Daughters of the Great Star The Hadra Clouds of War The Red Line of Yarmald They're actually quite interesting, and not as monochrome as some lesbian novels. Rivers is quite comfortable writing about a (mostly) heterosexual woman, for example, who leaves an abusive arranged marriage and discovers her own sexuality and ability to find sexual pleasure among the gentle Wanderers. And the "lesbian" Hadra take male lovers from among the Wanderers for the sake of children with no suggestion that they are holding their noses or suppressing the urge to gag. The Hadra just prefer the company of women in long term relationships and would rather not have too many men around leaving the toilet seat up and belching on the couch. >Ok new question ... are there known gender-oppression refusniks in any >male authored Sci-Fi [a la Stoltenburg perhaps?] Hmmm. I know there are, although I can't remember all that many of them offhand. Few seemed all that compelling to me. Heinlein, for example, posits a free-love sort of commune in Stranger in a Strange Land, but the result reminded me quite a bit of the Playboy Mansion, with randy female Bunnies prancing around naked while the men are basically right-wing gun nuts. Quite a few of the naked women as well, although they give up their guns when a real man shows them what real femininity means. He revisits this image in several of his later books, and becomes more pathetic in each until we discover him in bed with his own mother, who is quite aware that she is boinking her son. While the arc of his perversion seems inevitable, it disturbs me nonetheless. His father enjoys hearing about his mother's sexual adventures, so we can only assume that he had (or wished for) a similar arrangement in his personal life. Ick! He gives dirty old men a bad name, in my opinion... But his own version of the "Playboy Philosophy" would, except for virginity and fidelity, fit right in with the Promise Keepers. The men, while sexual adventurers, have a strict code of "honor" which lasts at least until they meet their next bedmate. But strictly speaking there *are* refusniks among his men, notably Libby from one of the earlier books who is revealed to be a transsexual in a later book (Heinlein liked tying up his many loose ends) and none of the men force or coerce any woman, despite their own proclivity for intra-male violence in cowboy-style showdowns. Think of John Wayne with a raygun. While hardly feminist, the novels place traditional limits on any sort of violence, with appropriate targets restricted to the guys in the black hats. Women and children are fatally out of bounds, and cruelty to animals is also a crime punishable by death, with the punishments for infractions being meted out by any handy passerby. In Beyond This Horizon, the men are violent duelists who kill each other at the drop of a hat over imaginary slights but will fight to the death to protect women and any unarmed citizen. Interestingly, the police in this heavily-armed society carry no weapons, since all the other men will cooperate to kill anyone who refuses police orders. This is a fairly common male fantasy, since the omnipotent ability to discern the inner heart from casually-observed actions is inherent in any sort of superhero, and the ability to "punish" any "misdeed" that offends you is seductive. I can only imagine what the freeways are like in Heinleinland, since road rage and carrying guns are every man's right and sacred duty. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 20:00:04 +0200 Reply-To: Thomas Gramstad Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: nature/nurture Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <121.106036b7.2a047a2b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rachel Wild wrote: > Mellisa asked... > Am I hearing that correctly, or no? I spent some time at the > altar of 100% nurture, but have now backed down to more of a > 50-50 arrangement, seeing the imprint of both nature and > nurture. > > Just to add more mud to these waters... I expect many of you > will have noticed the recent upsurge in theories like 'why men > can't iron' basically a big upswing in biological determinism. A > lot of the new determinism uses endrochronology - the study of > hormones, pheromones etc. and theories of 'brain sex'. A lot of that "research" is more ideological than scientific, ignoring alternative explanations and interpretations of what is observed, and difficult to reproduce. And then there are all the oversimplifications/distortions in media about what the research "really means". > I came across this study [now lost to me] from feminist > endrochronologists who proposed that behaviour determines nature > [i.e. hormonal response]. The example being that carrying out a > sexual assault may raise men's testosterone levels ... rather > that testosterone making this behaviour more likely. This blew > me away! ... I certainly notice my own hormonal levels changing > according to my circumstances and environment ... my suspicion > is that nature/nurture are in some kind of eternal feedback > loop... Yes, this is indeed the modern view of biology: that biology, environment and culture are so entwined with each other that separating them is not only very difficult, but very easily misleading. > but I'm unsure of genetic influence [for I fear centuries of > sexual selection of passive and tiny mates for alpha males will > have left women in a hopeless position ... but don't seem to > have observed it among the strapping lasses of Lancashire] For a "counterblast" to such ideas, see for example the work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, especially _The Woman That Never Evolved_. Makes a case that females, just as much as or even more than males, are active in the process of natural selection, thus influencing the 'direction' of evolution. There are also many examples from various primates that while the alpha males are busy fighting each other, more peaceful males are copulating with the females, reproducing their "peace genes"... (of course, there is no such thing as "peace genes" -- the point is that alpha male behavior is not necessarily a reproductively successful type of behavior). Thomas Gramstad thomas@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 12:19:41 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Native Tongue Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 02:29 AM 5/6/02 -0700, John Snead wrote: >Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > > > Specifically, women are far better at looking at pictures (or people > > in real time) and deducing what emotions are being expressed. For > > example, in the MEIS (see Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), women > > correctly identify underlying emotions from facial expressions far > > more easily than men do, on average. It's been postulated that women's > > abilities in this regard are facilitated by a greater connection > > between the two hemispheres of the brain, notably in the corpus > > collosum, which anatomical structure differs between the two sexes in > > the same way that other anatomical structures do. > >While the above data is to the best of my knowledge correct, the >interpretation you mentioned is yet another example of bad social >science. I have seen multiple studies citing how women have >larger & or more complex corpus collosums than men and an equal >number citing the reverse. I had a friend when I was in grad school >who kept a notebook of clipping of articles citing opposite >conclusions about studies in gender and psychology (ie one article >which cited that men's corpus collosums were larger, the other that >cities the reverse, for a great many subjects). This was the most >eloquent proof of the overall inaccuracy of the vast majority of such >studies I've ever seen. The fact that both halves of the brain are involved when females process language has been demonstrated by measurements, as has the lopsided activity of male brains doing the same task. I don't particularly care whether the corpus colossum is bigger in some men or not, since women *also* have more numerous dendritic connections between brain cells than men. It seems clear that there *is* greater coordination between the hemispheres in women, that this coordination must be mediated by the corpus collosum, since that's where the physical pathways lie, and the exact mechanism is relatively unimportant. I'm quite sure that the present state of our understanding of the brain is far from perfect, and we don't really *know* what causes many of the variations we see between *average* male and female behaviors, but it seems clear that there *are* differences that *appear*, without absolute proof, to be genetic. Many are easily measurable, like the greater sensitivity of women to odors and sounds, their ability to correctly identify the direction from which sounds come, and other traits that would seem unlikely to be mediated by social interaction or "nurture." But refusing to admit the likely biological basis for these things seems a bit like the tobacco companies claiming that there is no "scientific proof" that smoking causes cancer or the oil and coal companies saying that global warming isn't *really* dangerous, since more atmospheric pollution might actually be *good* for us and anyway, the fact that the best scientific estimates disagree with each other in that some show that the damage will be catastrophic while others show that it will merely be very bad shows that we can safely ignore the problem until the water is up to our necks or our pants catch on fire. While Moses has not yet descended from Sinai with a tablet stating what G-d thinks, so it's arguably true to say that we have no proof, it's also misleading and an attempt to grasp at straws in support of an untenable position. I don't really see the problem. The fact that men are far more likely to be colorblind doesn't strike me as a moral issue, just one that should be taken into account when applying for a job as a telephone repair technician or shopping assistant. If men are more violent, which seems inarguable *on* *the* *whole*, despite anecdotal evidence that some men are not and some women are, that's simply a fact that needs to be taken into account when building prisons and a criminal justice system. Oddly enough, we've done just that and *every* society on earth has more jail cells reserved for men and a limited number for women. I worked for many years in outreach programs for prisoners, and can anecdotally state that most of the female prisoners were there for non-violent crimes and status offences, the sort of women I felt quite comfortable sitting next to in groups and workshops, while the male prison population is dangerous and scary. I was constantly guarded at San Quentin, with special precautions being taken for my safety, while at the Chowchilla women's facility I could wander around fairly freely and the female prisoners were not as rigorously screened and isolated. With very few exceptions, nobody worried all that much about them. Equality is a nice goal, and a nice general principle, but we also have to have a firm grip on reality. If there is no biological basis for male violence, where the heck did it come from? Are these guys just "in the grip of Satan," as the Pope would have us believe, or simply scum? Are you suggesting that there is no biological advantage for men to make war on other men, capturing their resources and women, and thriving at the expense of captive women and slaves? Does that mean that ants who make war on other ants, taking slaves and resources, are *also* in the grip of Satan? Is it possible that these violent ants could repent and be forgiven? One only has to observe men watching a violent movie to see the greater extent to which men identify with and enjoy violence. While women sit there and may well enjoy the movie, very few women are so caught up in the spectacle that every blow on the screen is echoed by "body english" and grunts. Many men are. Men's literature is, for the most part, graphic and violent. While there are many exceptions, especially in "serious" literature as opposed to "genre," the pulp is what most men read, if they read at all. Pulp literature for women is *very* different. I happen to think that these differences are *partially* innate. I don't claim that women have a lace bodice gene, or a hoop skirt and crinoline gene, but for the most part women are looking for love, value relationships very highly, and have a different and less "localized" focus than most men do. Are you suggesting that women's biological interests would be served by ignoring the things that make for stable families, that our *general* sexual attraction to men instead of women has no selective advantage, and that babies are of equal interest and emotion to both women and men? I think not. We don't sit down and plan an evolutionary strategy, men simply smell good. We want the fathers of our children to stick around and help support the family at an instinctual level, not because we've calculated the relative costs of divorce lawyers and child support. Babies *must* stay with mothers, at least in the tens of thousands of years before bottles. When men and women separated from their mates, as they surely did occasionally, they didn't flip a coin to see who got the baby. I'm well aware that there are many exceptions to general rules. My own sister is colorblind, and cannot distinguish green from blue, which while not amazing is at least anomalous. As far as I know, no one else among our relations is similarly affected, but obviously the trait comes from *somewhere*. It's a mystery, that's a fact, but no "proof" doesn't mean no basis in reality. Of three sisters in my family, two didn't think that men smelled *all* that good, but that doesn't mean that the great majority of women agree. Exceptions and minor disagreements in experimental data don't prove anything. One can't get men off the hook for violence by touting Mahatma Gandhi any more than one can get Big Tobacco off the hook for cancer, however many "contradictory" studies you wave around. >My partner has done a great deal of work in communication and >the most reasonable theory (backed up by a good bit of interesting >data) is that such abilities more important to members of any group >that is mostly subordinate in the power structure. Members of >subordinate groups need to be able to discern nuances of behavior >and emotion far more clearly than people in positions of power, so >the members of such groups hone such skills. Looking for >biological explanations first, when cultural ones will suffice is *far* >to common in modern social science. Who said first? It's quite clear that *many* male and female behaviors are culturally conditioned. Few men wear skirts, for example, or (at least in my generation) makeup. Many women do. I don't think anyone has ever proposed that men have a trousers gene that makes them unwilling to don a skirt, or that Scots Highlanders are genetically defective because they are proud of wearing kilts. There are *lots* of male and female behaviors that are clearly fashion and fad, quite a few that are difficult to determine one way or another, and a significant residue that simply *must* be biologically determined in some way, despite our current inability to completely understand and prove exactly how these differences are caused. We knew which way the wind blew before we invented weather vanes and were never surprised by apples falling *down* out of trees, even *before* Newton codified that innate knowledge and made it "scientific." Our awareness of being male and female is innate I think, in spite of the fact that some of us have ambiguous gender or even anomalous internal feelings about what that gender means. Exceptions to this general certainty are only that, interesting oddities that demonstrate the vast range of human variability without saying much about our more usual similarities. The fact that a tossed coin may occasionally land on its edge doesn't alter the fact that *most* such coins are far less surprising. The fact that some of us are sure of our *real* gender despite physical evidence and concerted efforts to prove otherwise seems an existence proof of this fact. Assertions to the contrary have been proved fraudulent, despite "scientific" studies and quackery. The flim flam artists have been exposed, and biological reality is clearly seen lurking in the background of all the pretty "egalitarian" pictures. The story of Max Beck, a genetic male who was castrated as a newborn baby and raised as a girl is instructive. John Money, the famous nurture over nature partisan, lied about this case for *years*, gulled and misleading a generation of researchers, but the reality remains the same. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 23:42:17 +0200 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Diana Lago Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hello there >I hope you are aware that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe >and patriarchalist? He is a devout Mormon, who has called >for anti-gay legislation to stay on the books, so that >society sends the message to "those people" that their >behavior is not acceptable and not normal. >http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/orson_scott_card_hates.html But this is very interesting! Thank you Michael for the information, it is always good to know about this kind of things, and i did have no idea about Scott Card being homophone. Farewell to another one although he has never been among my favourite ones. In that sense, could anybody tell me which male authors are worth it, from a feminist point of view? I am not really sure. Best Nuria _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:20:46 +1000 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Alison Croggon Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 11:42 PM +0200 6/5/02, Diana Lago wrote: >i did have no idea about >Scott Card being homophone Neither did I! I can't bare it. A -- "The only real revolt is the revolt against war." Albert Camus Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 18:42:19 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: Scott Card... a homophobe Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5b.27682d48.2a0860cb_boundary" --part1_5b.27682d48.2a0860cb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Easy clue being that his baddies are called Buggers in Ender's game? [smile] Bye Rachel --part1_5b.27682d48.2a0860cb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Easy clue being that his baddies are called Buggers in Ender's game? [smile]

Bye
Rachel --part1_5b.27682d48.2a0860cb_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 21:27:33 -0400 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: Scott Card... a homophobe Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5b.27682d48.2a0860cb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F544.D5D87AC0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F544.D5D87AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I passed this distressing news on to an old friend who once wrote science fiction, and is gay. His response: "How depressing. Card is one of the few science fiction writers that I still read. I knew that he was Mormon, but I didn't know how far that extended. So strange since his earlier novel, Songmaster, is quite gay (curiously no longer in print, but I own a copy). I printed out the posting and will pass it along to interested parties at the store. Sigh." Did anyone else read Songmatser? Dave -----Original Message----- From: friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media [mailto:FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Rachel Wild Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:42 PM To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Scott Card... a homophobe Easy clue being that his baddies are called Buggers in Ender's game? [smile] Bye Rachel ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F544.D5D87AC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=20 passed this distressing news on to an old friend who once wrote science = fiction,=20 and is gay. His response:
"How=20 depressing. Card is one of the few science fiction writers that I = still read. I knew that he was Mormon, but = I didn't=20 know how far that extended. So = strange=20 since his earlier novel, Songmaster, is quite gay (curiously no longer in print, but I own a copy). I = printed=20 out the posting and will pass it = along to=20 interested parties at the store. Sigh."
Did anyone=20 else read Songmatser?
Dave
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature = and other=20 media [mailto:FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Rachel = Wild
Sent:=20 Monday, May 06, 2002 6:42 PM
To: = FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU
Subject:=20 [*FSFFU*] Scott Card... a homophobe

Easy clue being that his baddies = are called=20 Buggers in Ender's game? [smile]

Bye
Rachel=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F544.D5D87AC0-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:31:44 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Margaret Poore Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit as you add at the end of your email, Mike, I too like some of Scott Card's writing, despite his political views. I find his character development strangely fascinating. I was a sf fan long before I was a feminist and once upon a time read everything by Heinlien and Asimov, too. I never have been much of one to tailor my behavior, likes, and dislikes to political correctness.... Margaret -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 21:44:20 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Shalanna Subject: Re: Scott Card... a homophobe? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Well, let us temper this discussion a bit. Okay, we know that OSC is a believing, practicing, baptized, active member of the Latter-Day Saints church, otherwise known as the Mormon church. Like many fundamentalist Christian denominations (and some flavors of Judaism and Islam as well), the Mormons believe that homosexuality is a sin. They believe "hate the sin, love the sinner," so this is not to say that they hate the gay person or the gay community at all. It is only to say that they believe it's wrong, that it's not merely a lifestyle choice but a wrong choice. Considering the Mormon belief that you will be rewarded and positioned in Heaven according to how many children you have (it's more complex than that, but I don't want to get into it), I can certainly see how they might disapprove even more strongly of the gay lifestyle. However, they're not AFRAID of gay people, nor do they propagate hate stuff against them. Or they *shouldn't*, because that's never the mission of any church. God loves all His creation, and therefore He wants you to feed His sheep, not be mean to them. If they need help, you help them, not hinder them. If you think someone is in sin, you can tell him or her about it if you feel you must, but you're not supposed to browbeat him or her--that never does anything but turn the person against you and everything you stand for. An author, though, is not the only "speaker" in his books. I can write a character who's a Federalist or a Whig, even though I'm not a Whig, and if I'm doing my job correctly, I can portray this character as a foaming Whig and put words in his mouth that I don't believe and would never say. So we can't know if the cited passages are Card talking or the character talking for purposes of the novel. That said, I don't know the particular passage(s) in his work that are being cited, so I can't really make a judgment. I only know that the word with the suffix "-phobe" indicates and implies fear, which isn't the situation with those of the world who believe that homosexuality (or bestiality, or licking somebody else's lollipops, or painting nudes) is a sin. they're not AFRAID at all. They just have a sense of pity, distaste, revulsion, awkwardness, upset, or what-have-you, depending on how upset they get around people who practice [theft, hacking, Web surfing, fiction writing]. >"[Card's] earlier novel, Songmaster, is quite gay" Hee! That is a Southparkian insult in one sense, you know, but I realize that whoever said that meant it as a compliment, in the sense that a character or the milieu of the book portrayed the gay outlook in some way. I've really never heard of that book. Let's see what the used book flank says. http://www.xmission.com/~aml/reviews/b/B200002.html That's an interesting review. The music seemed to be their focus. --------- Shalanna Collins shalanna@attbi.com Did you like Harry Potter or the Narnia books? Try my fantasy adventure novel. _Dulcinea, or Wizardry A-Flute_ by Shalanna Collins, ISBN 0-7388-5388-7 Recent publications: "Prom Night," in _Heaven and Hell_ anthology, Speculation Press "Mama's Five Myths About Writing," in _Crumbs in the Keyboard_ antho, Avid Press, out in February 2002 "The Splatterfairies, or A Maul and the Night Visitors," in _Octoberland_ anthology, Flesh & Blood Press, out in mid-2002. Visit my *NEW* website: --- Of course magnets raise your IQ -- they made Maxwell smart! -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:16:00 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: male gender refusniks Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020506092930.00a36ec0@www.leeanne.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 5/6/02 12:29 PM, Lee Anne Phillips at leeanne@LEEANNE.COM wrote: > > This is a fairly common male fantasy, since the omnipotent > ability to discern the inner heart from casually-observed actions > is inherent in any sort of superhero, and the ability to "punish" > any "misdeed" that offends you is seductive. I can only imagine > what the freeways are like in Heinleinland, since road rage and > carrying guns are every man's right and sacred duty. I am really enjoying your posts, Lee Anne. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:31:29 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: Native Tongue Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020506103204.00a343e0@www.leeanne.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 5/6/02 2:19 PM, Lee Anne Phillips at leeanne@LEEANNE.COM wrote: > At 02:29 AM 5/6/02 -0700, John Snead wrote: > One only has to observe men watching a violent movie to > see the greater extent to which men identify with and enjoy > violence. While women sit there and may well enjoy the > movie, very few women are so caught up in the spectacle > that every blow on the screen is echoed by "body english" > and grunts. Many men are. Men's literature is, for the most > part, graphic and violent. While there are many exceptions, > especially in "serious" literature as opposed to "genre," > the pulp is what most men read, if they read at all. Pulp > literature for women is *very* different. I happen to think > that these differences are *partially* innate. I don't claim > that women have a lace bodice gene, or a hoop skirt and > crinoline gene, but for the most part women are looking for > love, value relationships very highly, and have a different > and less "localized" focus than most men do. I am in agreement with you that men on the whole are more prone to violence than women, and I believe that there is a biological root for this, but have to say I read an excellent book on the roots of violent behavior that came up with what I found to be a convincing study of a social/environmental component of violence. The book is WHY THEY KILL by Pulitzer prize winning author Richard Rhodes (I mention this not because PP-winning authors can't be poo-poo heads, but because it would bear some consideration to me, because I don't think that all those who select authors to receive some of the major awards are poo-poo heads...). Ahem. The book is the biography of a criminologist who studied the nature of violence in depth and came up with -- and this is what I found truly amazing -- not only a theory of the social roots of violence, but a theory of consciousness that I find completely plausible and even compelling. In addition to being extremely well researched, this book reads like a thriller. I couldn't put it down. Yes, parts of it were utterly repellent. But it's an amazing story. I believe that like cancer, diabetes, and many other genetically-linked disorders, the propensity to violence has genetic, hormonal, critical-period program, and long-term environmental/nurture elements. I believe that on the whole men are more prone biologically to violence than women. I also believe that there are strong social/environmental threads in the mix, and that if we understand them, we can find ways to control and prevent violent conditioning in men (and women). Sort of the social equivalent of a high-fiber low-fat diet, I guess you'd say...with a little sunshine and exercise blended in. -l. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:39:25 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Laura J. Mixon" Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <13d.df33d69.2a089690@aol.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 5/6/02 9:31 PM, Margaret Poore at MNightSkyP@AOL.COM wrote: > as you add at the end of your email, Mike, I too like some of Scott Card's > writing, despite his political views. I find his character development > strangely fascinating. I was a sf fan long before I was a feminist and once > upon a time read everything by Heinlien and Asimov, too. I never have been > much of one to tailor my behavior, likes, and dislikes to political > correctness.... I don't tailor my reading due to political correctness, and I think Card has done some interesting things with his fiction. But I have found some elements of his writing repugnant. In one of his Ender's Game novels, for example, there is a species in which the males are intelligent and sentient, but the females are nothing more than breeding animals. One of the humans rants against a fellow character for having the timerity to want to rescue the non-sentient females from their rather grim and horrible existence. It certainly gave me the creeps. I've also read works of his where I felt there was some apologetica for abuse stuff going on. Otoh, I think he can be a compelling writer, and knows how to tap into some deep emotions. I think writers are contradictory beasts, as are we all. Heinlein, by all reports, was quite a right-wing-ish nut, and his females of child-bearing years, almost to a woman, make me want to scream. But he has done some absolutely fascinating things with gosh-wowing and culture-bending, and damn, the man can write. THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS remains one of my favorite books. -l. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 21:10:29 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Scott Card... a homophobe? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020506213151.025d7f00@mail.attbi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII the information that OSC is a homophobe [however you care to define that term] is not new & is pretty well documented. see, e.g., salon.com interview by donna minkowitz on 2/3/2000 http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html quotes from an OSC publication, available on http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/orson_scott_card_hates.html "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" by OSC, 1990 http://www.nauvoo.com/library/hypocrites-osc.html [nauvoo is an LDS website] http://zoology.byu.edu/bioethics/hypocrites.htm [i think the BYU version is an abridgement but am not sure; and i'm very curious about why this piece is at a website on "bioethics" at BYU ... ] but see "Pastwatch: The Redemption of OSC" Eugene England http://humanities.byu.edu/mldb/eng-osc.htm which doesn't really deny homosexuality but just tries to say he's a good guy for all these other reasons ... and what the hell: www.affirmation.org/gay-bib.htm affirmation is a group of g/l mormons, and this is a bibliography of things including several pieces by or about card. as long as we're doing linguistic corrections: as to homophobia implying fear, yes, phobia is latin or greek or whatever for fear. but the word as generally used implies a whole swath of negativity and prejudice, not just fear. in the english language we often stray from the latin/greek roots of whatever words, including homosexuality and heterosexuality themselves .... too bad. calling someone a homophobe means that they dislike / fear / hate homosexuality or people who define themselves as gay/queer ... one might psychoanalyze those who have such pronounced disgust / dislike / hatred that they merit the term "homophobe" ... and conclude that any fear that is involved is not fear of the other [the "homosexual"] but fear of the self & the self's sexuality ... but hey, i'm getting far astray from science fiction ... laura quilter -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 00:32:01 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205070107.174XcH6Yr3Nl3oW0@strange.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > Actually, the statistics get more depressing when you start > to include men with lower levels of education. Over all men, > and after priming them by a sample of pornography involving > violence which implies that women "really want it," the > incidence of men who will admit that they would force a > woman to have sex with them rises to two out of three. > Presumably then, education does count for *something*. I agree with your comment about education. However, your comment about pornography is simply not correct. There is now a moderate amount of evidence that violent media images of all sorts can increase levels of violence in both men and women, but exposure to non-violent pornography does not increase violence against women, and exposure to violent pornography does not seem to have any greater effect than exposure to any other type of media violence. The studies about pornography are actually quite clear these days. I can dig up some references if you are interested. > He-man dolls for boys aren't created by women (or I don't > *think* they are), they aren't sold by women-owned > corporations. They simply sell well to boys. But they are frequently bought by mothers to give to their male children. This is *not* any sort of effort by men to make boys violent, it is a cultural effort promoted by both men and women to teach boys to be traditionally masculine (a cultural construct that includes violence). Boys who are not like this are tormented by their peers about being "sissies" and in many cases, adults (both men and women) at least tacitly approve of such torment. These days it is becoming more acceptable for parents to have non- feminine girls, but surverys clearly show that the majority of both mothers and fathers are at least moderately upset by the idea of having a non-masculine boy. This is not case of men perpetuating male violence, this is a case of most *people* perpetuating this violence, because this sort of violence is deeply embedded in our culture. I was very amused to hear a story from a women I know about how when she was in early grade school her (female) teacher called her parents about her having problems because she fought back when another child attempted to take a toy away from her. A couple of years later, the same teacher called her parents about my friend's younger brother when he did *not* fight back when another child took a toy away from him. In this way social norms are maintained. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 00:48:41 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: John Snead Subject: Re: please participate! Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <200205070107.174XcH6Yr3Nl3oW0@strange.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "Michael J. Lowrey" wrote: > > Margaret Poore wrote: > > > 6. Who do you believe creates more realistic female characters: > > female authors, male authors, neither, or both? I have mostly quit > > reading male authors. the main exceptions are Scott Card > > I hope you are aware that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe > and patriarchalist? He is a devout Mormon, who has called > for anti-gay legislation to stay on the books, so that > society sends the message to "those people" that their > behavior is not acceptable and not normal. > http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/orson_scott_card_hates.html I hadn't heard about his support for anti-gay legislation, but it doesn't surprise me - what a sad individual. I met him once at a con and he seemed a very kind and reasonable person, but I can't see any other reading of many of his books (especially _Songmaster_) except that he is a *massively* repressed closet case. I feel *very* sorry for him. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 09:15:01 -0500 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: "Michael J. Lowrey" Organization: The Working Class Subject: Re: FSFFU list member to appear on nationwidetelevision; apathy sweeps movement!` Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit earthyfemme wrote: > > Best of Luck trouncing Mr Stein :O Well... SPOILER SPACE INSERTED S P O I L E R S P A C E I got to the final round, and tied him there, taking home a total of $2,000. I was mocked for my eccentricities, but (I am told) held my own, with dignity and humor. What's so hard? They kept telling me, "Win Ben Stein's money!"; so I did. The check has already been deposited (partly in my little girl's college money fund, of course). -- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:22:54 -0400 Reply-To: judithberman@earthlink.net Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Judith Berman Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > There is now a >moderate amount of evidence that violent media images of all sorts >can increase levels of violence in both men and women, > >>He-man dolls for boys aren't created by women (or I don't >>*think* they are), they aren't sold by women-owned >>corporations. They simply sell well to boys. >> >But they are frequently bought by mothers to give to their male >children. > FWIW, an anecdote: last week my 2-and-a-half year old son and I were in a waiting room with a six-year-old boy who was playing with two visored, muscle-bound action figures. The older boy was having them fight each other with punches and kicks and somersaults and so on; in his narrative they were also taunting each other. (I should say that Sam, my son, watches no television or videos -- has hardly ever seen a television on -- and has no older siblings.) Sam stood rooted to the ground watching this older boy's play, both fascinated and puzzled by it. "What's he doing, mommy?" he asked me over and over again. At that moment I realized that he had no concept of what a "fight" was -- he simply had no model, period, for the other boy's play and for much of what media culture produces (not an unexpected result of no television, obviously, but at that moment it hit me in the face). I wanted to cover his eyes and ears to preserve his innocence. It's not that he's never manifested anger or aggression; he'll throw a toy or a spoon, for example. There have been great advances in the study of infant and child brain development in the last 5 or 10 years. A book written for the general public that sums up current research ca. 1999 is Lise Eliot, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THERE?: HOW THE BRAIN AND MIND DEVELOP IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF LIFE. What has emerged is that certain developmental processes are highly genetically programmed -- for example the order that neurological systems come on line in an infant's brain -- but the process and the end product of that development is greatly influenced by environment. Infant brains produce a huge excess of neurons but these neurons are not connected to each other. The process of development (and healthy infant development depends on a great deal of close interaction with adults) both establishes the connections between neurons and weeds out what's left over. Brain development is most active in the first 5 years but some systems are still coming on line through adolescence and beyond; and the brain never completely loses its plasticity -- the ability to establish new connections and remold old ones. Biological sex (testosterone levels) does affect brain development, though there is a great deal of individual variation. Infant boys' speech systems do tend to come on line several months later than girls'; same with the kinds of conscious control needed for toilet training. There are one or two other examples that seem to be documentable. This is not to say others will not be discovered. I'm willing to believe there's a car-and-truck gene somewhere on the Y chromosome! :) Overall, strict genetic determinism of the *end product* of brain development in any large-scale way is unsupported by current science. The studies that appear to show differences in, say, the spatial or verbal abilities of men and women are dealing not with basic functionality but with pretty small distinctions (otherwise they would be easier and less controversial to measure.) How the ebb and flow of hormones affect behavior at any moment in time is, I suppose, another topic. Both men and women share the same hormones -- e.g., both have estrogen and testosterone -- the difference being relative levels. Besides being bad science, genetic determinism has an ugly and disturbing history: it's been used against minorities and women for everything from genocide to denial of civil rights to psychological oppression. It is, when you come down to it, an ugly and disturbing concept. At root it means: you have no free will. You cannot grow. You are inherently bad. I'd also like to put in a plea for not vilifying people on the basis of class. I too very much dislike such behaviors as groups of men hooting at passing women -- though I experienced it more frequently walking through an Ivy League campus than passing downtown construction sites. "Boys will be boys," was the reaction of one of my grad school professors when his son had been implicated in a fraternity gang rape. It should not need to be said that people of all classes and educational levels are capable of nastiness and as well as decency, enlightenment as well as ignorance. I'm not saying that education and exposure to ideas don't affect people's attitudes about gender, on average, just that they shouldn't be overrated, nor should the consequences of lack of same. Judith >These days it is becoming more acceptable for parents to have non- >feminine girls, but surverys clearly show that the majority of both >mothers and fathers are at least moderately upset by the idea of >having a non-masculine boy. This is not case of men perpetuating >male violence, this is a case of most *people* perpetuating this >violence, because this sort of violence is deeply embedded in our >culture. > >I was very amused to hear a story from a women I know about how >when she was in early grade school her (female) teacher called her >parents about her having problems because she fought back when >another child attempted to take a toy away from her. A couple of >years later, the same teacher called her parents about my friend's >younger brother when he did *not* fight back when another child >took a toy away from him. In this way social norms are >maintained. > >-John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com > >-------------------------------------------------- >This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for >discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To >unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to >LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: > unsubscribe FEMINISTSF > >Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. > -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:01:43 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Rachel Wild Subject: homophobia Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_25.2738dfc6.2a09b6d7_boundary" --part1_25.2738dfc6.2a09b6d7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "That said, I don't know the particular passage(s) in his work that are being cited, so I can't really make a judgment. I only know that the word with the suffix "-phobe" indicates and implies fear, which isn't the situation with those of the world who believe that homosexuality (or bestiality, or licking somebody else's lollipops, or painting nudes) is a sin. they're not AFRAID at all. They just have a sense of pity, distaste, revulsion, awkwardness, upset, or what-have-you, depending on how upset they get around people who practice [theft, hacking, Web surfing, fiction writing]." [emphasis mine] Point one - homophobia [literally of course, fear of *sameness* - nil mention of sexuality] is a word the gay community has been landed with ... whilst nitpickingly it refers to 'fear of homos' ... in common usage it refers to personal, cultural, social and institutional discrimination experienced. Many feminists make the distinction of calling all but the personal realm heterosexism. Point two - though I have not read the source of the original complaint, it is of long-standing and refers to a polemic not a fiction - to my knowledge Scott Card had not cleared any misunderstanding the gay community has (?) so I take the action as intended Point three - please don't put a disagreement with homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality [this being distinctly non-consensual and steeped in abuse of power ... considering the status of animals in most cultures ... (not sure why I feel the need to explain the difference???)] - the gay community had been saddled with such comparisons far too many times [and with far too hideous results] to do this even in jest point four - 'sin' is a value judgement ... historically the precursor to events such as witch burnings, burying gay men under rocks, taking peoples kids away etc. and therefore I find it hard to believe that this is ever just a slight difference of moral opinion - but rather *always* the propagation of hate Respectfully Rachel [ being very careful not to be argumentative but feeling this needs saying nontheless ] [wry smile] PS at 15 I found 'Enders game' [the short version] a significant influence on my beliefs about power systems in the military ... and 'unaccompanied sonata' a beautiful paean to the dangers of biological determinism ... but am still prone to puking if I remember his story about a set of beings that farm people for meat [including descriptions of fried *breasts*] which I suppose in another light could have encouraged me to veganism. At 31 Ender's game [long version] now reads for me as too much of a praisegiving to intelectual/ military genius at the expense of other human possibilities ... though I'm still half in love with Bean. --part1_25.2738dfc6.2a09b6d7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "That said, I don't know the particular passage(s) in his work that are
being cited, so I can't really make a judgment.  I only know that the word
with the suffix "-phobe" indicates and implies fear, which isn't the
situation with those of the world who believe that homosexuality (or
bestiality, or licking somebody else's lollipops, or painting nudes) is a
sin.  they're not AFRAID at all.  They just have a sense of pity, distaste,
revulsion, awkwardness, upset, or what-have-you, depending on how upset
they get around people who practice [theft, hacking, Web surfing, fiction
writing]." [emphasis mine]

Point one - homophobia [literally of course, fear of *sameness* - nil mention of sexuality] is a word the gay community has been landed with ... whilst nitpickingly it refers to 'fear of homos' ... in common usage it refers to  personal, cultural, social and institutional discrimination experienced.
Many feminists make the distinction of calling all but the personal realm heterosexism.
Point two - though  I have not read the source of the original complaint, it is of long-standing and refers to a polemic not a fiction - to my knowledge Scott Card had not cleared any misunderstanding the gay community has (?) so I take the action as intended
Point three - please don't put a disagreement with homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality [this being distinctly non-consensual and steeped in abuse of power ... considering the status of animals in most cultures ... (not sure why I feel the need to explain the difference???)] - the gay community had been saddled with such comparisons far too many times [and with far too hideous results] to do this even in jest
point four - 'sin' is a value judgement ... historically the precursor to events such as witch burnings, burying gay men under rocks, taking peoples kids away etc. and therefore I find it hard to believe that this is ever just a slight difference of moral opinion  - but rather *always* the propagation of hate

Respectfully
Rachel
[ being very careful not to be argumentative but feeling this needs saying nontheless ] [wry smile]

PS  at 15 I found 'Enders game' [the short version] a significant influence on my beliefs about power systems in the military ... and 'unaccompanied sonata' a beautiful paean to the dangers of biological determinism ... but am still prone to puking if I remember his story about a set of beings that farm people for meat [including descriptions of fried *breasts*] which I suppose in another light could have encouraged me to veganism.
At 31 Ender's game [long version] now reads for me as too much of a praisegiving to intelectual/ military genius at the expense of other human possibilities ... though I'm still half in love with Bean.
--part1_25.2738dfc6.2a09b6d7_boundary-- -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:08:11 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: male gender refusniks Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another book of interest might be Kin of Ata Are Waiting for You (The Comforter) by Dorothy Bryant. It's been a while since I read it, so many of the particulars are shadowy in my mind, but not only does Bryant show a society where men aren't violent, but she specifically shows the transformation of a man who is a rapist from 'our world', unlearning his violent sexism in the world to which he is transported. The opening rape scene was rather controversial at the time, because of its explicit nature, even though it's there to show the degree of the characters change.-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 18:19:43 -0600 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Anita Weingarten Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > > He-man dolls for boys aren't created by women (or I don't > > *think* they are), they aren't sold by women-owned > > corporations. They simply sell well to boys. >John Snead" wrote: > > But they are frequently bought by mothers to give to their male > children. This is *not* any sort of effort by men to make boys > violent, it is a cultural effort promoted by both men and women to > teach boys to be traditionally masculine (a cultural construct that > includes violence). Boys who are not like this are tormented by > their peers about being "sissies" and in many cases, adults (both > men and women) at least tacitly approve of such torment. And please, let's not forget the toy companies. As the mother of a three-and-a-half-year-old boy, I am currently in the trenches trying to make sure my son grows up to be a gentle and thoughtful man and yet remains able to take care of himself in a world which is often not accepting of such men. I recently read a book about violence in children's play (Who's Calling the Shots, by Nancy Carlsson-Paige and Diane Levin ), in which the authors argue, among other things, that toy manufacturers and marketers intentionally prey on young children's emergent need to *locate* themselves in terms of gender in order to increase their sales. So, they argue, a young boy, just becoming aware of himself AS a boy and having a tendency as all children do to think in simplistic, either/or terms, will tend to gravitate toward the toys presented to him as most *boyish*, even if they are not necessarily what he's most interested in. So that greatly exaggerating the differences between *masculine* toys and *feminine* toys, and marketing them accordingly, will help you sell toys. So we end up with He-Man and My Little Pony, without much in between. Carlsson-Paige and Levin also point to the way in which, after the massive deregulation of children's television that took place in the Reagan era, children's shows became increasingly both more violent and more commercial, so that by 1985 all the top-selling toys on the market were directly linked to tv shows. What's interesting about this in terms of gender formation (and identity formation in general) is that, as opposed to toys which they can use in a variety of ways for more-or-less open-ended play (e.g., a doll or a hammer), children are more and more limited to single-use, very specifically defined toys which do not lend themselves to any play beyond the acting out of the pre-written *script* of the television show or character involved. Thus the very function of children's play, that of exploring and experimenting with different ways of understanding and being in the world, is being co-opted, appropriated by media moguls and toy manufacturers -- they are the ones "calling the shots," as the title of the book puts it. If you accept this argument (and even if you don't), then you can't say that He-Man toys *simply* sell well to boys. Young children, like the rest of us, are subject to a whole host of cultural influences and expectations which limit and direct their choices. I guess I am really just agreeing with John when he says that there is "a cultural effort promoted by both men and women to teach boys to be traditionally masculine." I just don't want to ignore the extent to which the power behind any such effort is unequally distributed. Many people have an interest in propping up traditional notions of gender, but corporations which market to children have a very concrete, measurable interest in the same, as well as a powerful forum for ensuring it happens. Hope I didn't babble on too long (and not a single mention of science fiction!). This is my first post -- do let me know if I didn't do it correctly. Anita -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:32:00 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/02 7:24:34 PM Central Daylight Time, Chatham1990@TOTALSPEED.NET writes: << Many people have an interest in propping up traditional notions of gender, but corporations which market to children have a very concrete, measurable interest in the same, as well as a powerful forum for ensuring it happens. Hope I didn't babble on too long (and not a single mention of science fiction!). This is my first post -- do let me know if I didn't do it correctly. >> Far from it - you did not babble too long. Thanks for posting.-Joy Martin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:50:54 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: male gender refusniks Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <36.27223ad9.2a09c66b@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:08 PM 5/7/02 -0400, Joy Martin wrote: >Another book of interest might be Kin of Ata Are Waiting for You (The >Comforter) by Dorothy Bryant. It's been a while since I read it, so many of >the particulars are shadowy in my mind, but not only does Bryant show a >society where men aren't violent, but she specifically shows the >transformation of a man who is a rapist from 'our world', unlearning his >violent sexism in the world to which he is transported. The opening rape >scene was rather controversial at the time, because of its explicit nature, >even though it's there to show the degree of the characters change.-Joy Unfortunately, the known recidivism rate for rapists is very high, and for the most brutal rapes recidivism rises above 90%. Re-educating rapists is largely futile, since most rapists simply use their time in prison to network with other rapists and develop strategies that help prevent detection and capture. So many believe that "success" stories are about as reliable as those for Jenny Craig. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:43:48 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Women's language abilities Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:32 AM 5/7/02 -0700, John Snead wrote: >Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > > > Actually, the statistics get more depressing when you start > > to include men with lower levels of education. Over all men, > > and after priming them by a sample of pornography involving > > violence which implies that women "really want it," the > > incidence of men who will admit that they would force a > > woman to have sex with them rises to two out of three. > > Presumably then, education does count for *something*. > >I agree with your comment about education. However, your >comment about pornography is simply not correct. There is now a >moderate amount of evidence that violent media images of all sorts >can increase levels of violence in both men and women, but >exposure to non-violent pornography does not increase violence >against women, and exposure to violent pornography does not >seem to have any greater effect than exposure to any other type of >media violence. The studies about pornography are actually quite >clear these days. I can dig up some references if you are >interested. Exactly how is it wrong to report a result? I identified the nature of the pornography involved very specifically. Hauling in other studies about other types of visual media is simply beside the point. I'd think it would be startling enough to find potential rapists lurking among two out of three males, albeit after watching a violent pornographic movie, but men whose grip on morality is so tenuous that watching a movie will change their behaviors can hardly be held up as good citizens. Presumably, if a suggestion made by a movie is persuasive, a similar suggestion made by a "buddy" might reasonably be expected to do the same. This seems to be borne out by actual experience in gang rapes, since the sight of a woman being raped will encourage the majority of the men present to participate serially, even if they didn't have the original idea. As for pornography in general, most is made by the exploitation of young women who have a history of childhood sexual abuse. The idea that a distinction can be made between violent and non-violent pornography seems specious at best, since even in "non-violent" movies the system by which girls are "broken" to pornography and prostitution is violent at its heart. Just as people with their heads screwed on right refuse to purchase canned tuna fish that is not "dolphin safe," despite the fact that one can't *see* dolphins being killed no matter what tuna one buys, I'd think that the only correct moral stance is to refuse to purchase or watch *any* pornography involving women unless you personally know the parties involved and can vouch for the fact that the women have not been coerced by pimps, or raped and devastated by male relatives. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 00:07:43 EDT Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: male gender refusniks Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/02 9:52:13 PM Central Daylight Time, leeanne@LEEANNE.COM writes: << Unfortunately, the known recidivism rate for rapists is very high, and for the most brutal rapes recidivism rises above 90%. >> On Ata the recidivism rate is low, if not nonexistent. But then, Ata is fantasy / science fiction. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 21:31:55 -0700 Reply-To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" Sender: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Scott Card... a homophobe? Comments: To: "friendly discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature and other media" In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020506213151.025d7f00@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:44 PM 5/6/02 -0500, Shalanna wrote: >Well, let us temper this discussion a bit. Okay, we know that OSC is a >believing, practicing, baptized, active member of the Latter-Day Saints >church, otherwise known as the Mormon church. Like many fundamentalist >Christian denominations (and some flavors of Judaism and Islam as well), >the Mormons believe that homosexuality is a sin. They believe "hate the >sin, love the sinner," so this is not to say that they hate the gay person >or the gay community at all. It is only to say that they believe it's >wrong, that it's not merely a lifestyle choice but a wrong This analysis is incorrect, since they don't treat homosexuality as a "sin," but rather as a crime. There are many "sins" listed in the Bible, by which we include the 365 negative commandments and whatever may be inferred from the 248 positive commandments. In the case of the Mormons, we also have to include whatever happens to have been said by any of their numerous "prophets," whose word is essentially as binding on the membership as that of G-d. Most of those commandments are studiously ignored by every Christian. Leaving aside the fact that Mormonism is *not* a Christian denomination, since they don't accept the Nicene Creed or any other of the various confessions of faith that have been accepted as fundamental tenets of the Christian faith for a little less than 2000 years and believe in a plurality of G-ds, avoiding polytheism only by the flimsy expedient of proposing that the other G-ds have their own private universes, I happen to think that self-styled Fundamentalist Christianity, including (for the sake of argument) Mormonism, is morally bankrupt, inherently perverted and hateful, and a grievous sin against G-d and all humanity. Scriptural authorities cheerfully supplied on request. >choice. Considering the Mormon belief that you will be rewarded and >positioned in Heaven according to how many children you have (it's more >complex than that, but I don't want to get into it), I can certainly see >how they might disapprove even more strongly of the gay >lifestyle. Being gay is not a lifestyle. Owning a recreational vehicle is a lifestyle. Naturism is a lifestyle. Even Mormonism may be a lifestyle, although I strongly suspect that most adherents prefer to think of their religious life as something rather more than a hobby. The condescending use of the word "lifestyle" is egregiously and gratuitously insulting. And if their main criteria for the Celestial Kingdom is children (which, by the way, it isn't -- Marriage for Time and Eternity is), they ought to strongly support the gay community in their efforts to conceive and raise children. They do not, thereby consigning those spirit children who have not managed to be born on Earth before the Second Coming, which is, from all accounts, soonish, to the Terrestial Kingdom, the lowest level of Heaven, a particularly callous and boorish sin. Children, or contrariwise the lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with being gay or lesbian and only a spiritual purpose in Mormon Marriage. One doesn't achieve the Celestial Kingdom through one's children, but enables the spirit children of G-d and his wives to be incarnated on Earth, baptized, and obtain the *possibility* of Temple Marriage whereby tithing males can become G-ds and females can become one of G-d's wives. This is a good work, not salvation, and merely laudable, not a necessary precursor. >However, they're not AFRAID of gay people, nor do they >propagate hate stuff against them. Nonsense. If they're not AFRAID of gay people, why do they insist that gay people stay away from their children, be denied residence in their neighborhoods, and be refused access to other basic human rights, rights accessible to every other minority group other than women, who possess only a subset of the rights available to other identifiable groups. >Or they *shouldn't*, because that's >never the mission of any church. God loves all His creation, and therefore >He wants you to feed His sheep, not be mean to them. If they need help, >you help them, not hinder them. If you think someone is in sin, you can >tell him or her about it if you feel you must, but you're not supposed to >browbeat him or her--that never does anything but turn the person against >you and everything you stand for. Well, then. >An author, though, is not the only >"speaker" in his books. I can write a character who's a Federalist or a >Whig, even though I'm not a Whig, and if I'm doing my job correctly, I can >portray this character as a foaming Whig and put words in his mouth that I >don't believe and would never say. So we can't know if the cited passages >are Card talking or the character talking for purposes of the novel. Card *is* a homophobe, no matter what his characters say, and most authors leave little doubt about where they themselves stand in relation to the speeches of their characters. >That said, I don't know the particular passage(s) in his work that are >being cited, so I can't really make a judgment. I only know that the word >with the suffix "-phobe" indicates and implies fear, which isn't the >situation with those of the world who believe that homosexuality (or >bestiality, or licking somebody else's lollipops, or painting nudes) is a >sin. they're not AFRAID at all. They just have a sense of pity, distaste, >revulsion, awkwardness, upset, or what-have-you, depending on how upset >they get around people who practice [theft, hacking, Web surfing, fiction >writing]. Nonsense again. -------------------------------------------------- This is the FEMINISTSF listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF Contact FEMINISTSF-request@UIC.EDU if there are problems.