Feminist Science Fiction

[tinkerdan]

Personally I don't think plot or theme or special devices should drive a story.

What drives the story is the character. So if you define a character well then you'll have a good chance of making a good story.

When ever you try to make sex- sexism- feminism and the like into a plot device that's all it is and it really hasn't defined the characters who are separate from that.

You make your character into of what you make your character out of and it either rings true to the reader or you end up with something that is driven by everything else and it will lose the readers interest.

I'm not sure how that would fit with trying to shoe horn feminism into a story unless you make feminism a driving part of the character internally. And that would mean I couldn't do it since I have yet to grasp exactly what feminism would look like on the written page.

 

[Tyler Danann]

Well as far as the feminism from the likes of ghoulish Germaine Greer and the other man-hating ones I saw on TV from the late 70, 80s and 90s they are one of the biggest disasters to western civilization in modern times.
The 1960s feminism, like most things started out as a good idea, but got hijacked along the way.

What I call the real-deal feminism which is the authentic, feminine, strong womanly (without being a stepford wife) ways that were eradicated by the various monolithic religions, well that type is more than alright in my book.

Some authors do have this, I think one of these types of feminist had her work made into an arthurian TV series. Except it focused on Morgana Le Fey etc.

 

[Tyler Danann]

Indeed, there are certain topics that men (according to society) can't talk about. Emotions and relationships aren't acceptable pub talk topics. In fact, male (drinking) society espouses anti-intellectualism.

Depends where you are also. Folk in the USA for example are a lot more individualistic than say the UK, yet are more manly. Yet in the UK there's a degree of greater social cohesion IF you fit into the box you'll be labelled up as.

It's very difficult to spread a new idea that goes against the grain, especially if people are bred and taught not to question things.

Many man are incredibly bitter against women precisely because of the corrosive effects of man being set against woman. A better kind of feminist will hopefully emerge, some writers 'get it'

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Well as far as the feminism from the likes of ghoulish Germaine Greer and the other man-hating ones I saw on TV from the late 70, 80s and 90s they are one of the biggest disasters to western civilization in modern times.
The 1960s feminism, like most things started out as a good idea, but got hijacked along the way.

What I call the real-deal feminism which is the authentic, feminine, strong womanly (without being a stepford wife) ways that were eradicated by the various monolithic religions, well that type is more than alright in my book.

Some authors do have this, I think one of these types of feminist had her work made into an arthurian TV series. Except it focused on Morgana Le Fey etc.

I would certainly be interested to hear in what way you feel that feminism of the late 20th century has been a disaster. From my own point of view, it has been one of the best things to happen to "Western" society (and one of things that is most desperately needed in other parts of the world.)

As far as "man hating" goes, well, let's look at an old essay by Joanna Russ about that subject (assuming this link works.)

http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/Valerie+Solanas/

(Go down to the fourth item on this list and click on it to read her essay "The New Misandry: Man-Hating in 1972." I believe you may find it of interest. It may explain why some women were angry at men at the time, even if that was rather unfair to many decent men.)

 

[Montero]

Personally I don't think plot or theme or special devices should drive a story.

What drives the story is the character. So if you define a character well then you'll have a good chance of making a good story.

When ever you try to make sex- sexism- feminism and the like into a plot device that's all it is and it really hasn't defined the characters who are separate from that.

You make your character into of what you make your character out of and it either rings true to the reader or you end up with something that is driven by everything else and it will lose the readers interest.

I'm not sure how that would fit with trying to shoe horn feminism into a story unless you make feminism a driving part of the character internally. And that would mean I couldn't do it since I have yet to grasp exactly what feminism would look like on the written page.

I wouldn't want to read any story with something shoehorned into it. How the characters interact is indeed part of the story. In simple terms, if one character thinks women should be kinde, kirche, kuche and another doesn't then you have an opposition/conflict that will drive at least parts of the story and has elements that could be called feminist.

I'd like to recommend to you to try reading the Barbara Hambly books I mentioned earlier in the thread. Try the Ladies of Mandrigyn. Excellent sword and sorcery with a thread through it, that is essential to the story, that it is the women who finish up having to fight. It is in no way contrived.

 

[James Coote]

Just came across this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Nice to see someone has a sense of humour and that we don't have to be all deadly serious when it comes to sexism

 

[dask]

Anyone read Thomas Disch's take on feminist sf in his THE DREAMS OUR STUFF IS MADE OF?

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Anyone read Thomas Disch's take on feminist sf in his THE DREAMS OUR STUFF IS MADE OF?

I read that book, but I have to admit that I forget what he said!

 

[Tyler Danann]

I would certainly be interested to hear in what way you feel that feminism of the late 20th century has been a disaster. From my own point of view, it has been one of the best things to happen to "Western" society (and one of things that is most desperately needed in other parts of the world.)

No you see only the fluffly exterior and thin-crust of it. I thought that when I was a teenager and in my 20s.

Feminism has actually driven the female to treat the male as an adversary, 'all-men-are-bastards', and 'us-and-them'.

It has driven up the cost of living (more women than ever are in the workplace competing with the male, but that's meant less jobs for men and less women having children). Housing in the west requires both partners to be working in order to afford it, the woman has children a lot later in life, dropping the fertility and birth rate.

Lastly it has brought about a seismic shift in how the female views the male. Which is as a lesser entity with traditional values being 'redundant' in the modern sense. All the while a mass-media encourages and emphasises more, more and yet more feminism. It shouldn't be called feminism as females already were feminine in the first place.

The universities and left-wing pulpits elsewhere essentially brought about a fascism in the female mind. A brainwashing that will take many years to fade away through the generations.

 

[iansales]

Er no. You need to read up on feminism, and not from sources like Conservapedia. In fact, read up on intersectionality as well, while you're at it. Feminism has nothing to do with left-wing politics and everything to do with gender equality.

 

[Ursa major]

Feminism has [...] everything to do with gender equality.

Exactly. And it's entirely a GOOD THING.


However...

Because the fight for gender equality has universal application, people with all sorts of views - mainstream and otherwise - can be involved (either pro or anti). Further, some of those with views at the extreme label** themselves as being true feminists (because they've never softened their views or 'sold out').

One does not have to visit Conservapedia - I'd never heard of that site before now - to find some of the things Tyler has mentioned. The comment pages of The Grauniad do give a home to unreconstructed man-haters (including, in recent days, those who hate transwomen). Their agenda doesn't seem to be equality at all, which (in my humble opinion) means that they aren't really feminists at all.

I suspect these people are very few in number, but, as with extremists of all types, they seem to shout louder than anyone else. And simply by claiming to be feminists, they somehow qualify themselves to be published by The Grauniad (and the associated Sunday paper, The Observer), however hateful the content of their pieces is. (Actually, these papers - like many others - make money from this sort of thing, as the reader comments from mainstream Grauniad readers pour in to complain about the views expressed in the columns and so drive advertising revenue.)


** - I suspect that some of them also self-identify as left-wing, but whether they really are is another matter.

 

[HareBrain]

The universities and left-wing pulpits elsewhere essentially brought about a fascism in the female mind. A brainwashing that will take many years to fade away through the generations.

That's strange: this describes none** of the women I know and converse with. I guess they must be deliberately hiding it to lull me into a false sense of security so they can gang up and kick my patriarchal ass.

** none.

 

[Ursa major]

Oh, and while we're about it.... When our (UK) rugby players pile into each other wearing only shirts, shorts, underwear, socks and boots, are they really less manly than the armoured (US) members of gridiron teams? I would suggest not.

People, of whatever gender or nationality (or any other label), are people; individuals don't really conform to crude stereotypes, not when you get to know them.

 

[iansales]

One does not have to visit Conservapedia - I'd never heard of that site before now - to find some of the things Tyler has mentioned.

DON'T GOT THERE! (seriously)

The comment pages of The Grauniad do give a home to unreconstructed man-haters (including, in recent days, those who hate transwomen). Their agenda doesn't seem to be equality at all, which (in my humble opinion) means that they aren't really feminists at all.

Yes and no. There is sexism and there is institutional/structural sexism. In much the same way in current thinking, the term "racism" tends to refer to institutional racism alone - so all white people are racist. They can't help it, it's an historical consequence. We can only acknowledge it and work to mitigate it. Studies have shown, for example, that "colour blindness" is completely ineffective in dealing with race.

This is now how sexism is being treated by many people involved in gender relations. They are not "man-haters", though they are haters of the patriarchal society of which sexism against women is a symptom, and which feminism is an attempt to combat. Their language is often inveterate because it gets them heard - sadly.

There are also different types of feminism. Most modern feminists classify themselves as Third Wave feminists, which incorporates intersectionality. Some Second Wave feminists are less broad-minded. Some of them are, as you point out, the extreme fringe. But they no more get a voice on Guardian than anyone else does.

Feminism is apolitical, but it has been associated with left wing politics because right wing politics is the politics of control and authority - feminism is counter to that. Left wing politics has also traditionally been more liberal socially than right wing - though the right wing has become a great deal less socially liberal in recent decades than it was before. (Check out Romney's debate against Ted Kennedy for the Senate back in 1994. He wasn't always a frothing at the mouth right-wing GOP nutjob.)

 

[Ursa major]

DON'T GOT THERE! (seriously)

Don't worry, I won't be.

They are not "man-haters", though they are haters of the patriarchal society of which sexism against women is a symptom, and which feminism is an attempt to combat. Their language is often inveterate because it gets them heard - sadly.

I would argue that some (a very few) are "man-haters", at least in how they put their case. (Which is one of the reasons that they get heard, sadly.) Whether they believe all of what they say, only they know.

There are also different types of feminism. Most modern feminists classify themselves as Third Wave feminists, which incorporates intersectionality. Some Second Wave feminists are less broad-minded. Some of them are, as you point out, the extreme fringe. But they no more get a voice on Guardian than anyone else does.

I would argue that they get more of a voice compared to their number in the real world. This isn't at all unusual: a newspaper doesn't pick its contributors by using a pin and a phonebook; they provide a platform for those who both want to say something and have something to say.

And as I mentioned, controversial views help bring in advertising revenue: why print a load of motherhood/apple pie platitudes when you can pull in the page hits with controversy? (Isn't this one of the reasons why the Daily Fail gets so many hits? And isn't that why quite a few of The Grauniad's comment columns seem to mirror - or, worse, simply follow on from - Daily Fail pieces from the day before?)

 

[The Judge]

That's strange: this describes none** of the women I know and converse with. I guess they must be deliberately hiding it to lull me into a false sense of security so they can gang up and kick my patriarchal ass.

Dammit. You've seen through our nefarious plan.

Well, I suppose I better get back to kinder, k[FONT=&quot]ü[/FONT]che and kirche** and stop bringing the world to near destruction by my views on the rights of women to -- gasp -- work in paid employment, and -- double gasp -- choose whether to have children.



** Anyone else note the KKK? Is this just coincidence?!

 

[Ursa major]

So you own a pointy hat as well as a pointy sword?

 

[iansales]

I would argue that they get more of a voice compared to their number in the real world. This isn't at all unusual: a newspaper doesn't pick its contributors by using a pin and a phonebook; they provide a platform for those who both want to say something and have something to say.

Well, squeaky wheel and all that. And certainly controversy is better at generating pageviews than fluffy kittens-- no, wait. Not fluffy kittens. They'll always win. Controversy is better at generating pageviews than sensible reasoned discussion. My own blog saw a month's worth of hits over a single weekend just because I said - shock! horror! - Asimov was actually a rubbish sf writer. But as a general rule, the Guardian, like the other newspapers, sticks quite closely to its political beliefs. It is a left-leaning socially liberal paper, and its contents reflect that...

So quite why the Observer, their Sunday edition, chose to publish Julie Burchill's transphobic the other weekend is a mystery. It didn't do their credibility any good, and they removed the piece from their website within the a couple of days. (So, of course, the Daily Torygraph went and reprinted it. Scum.)

Mind you, why *anyone* chooses to publish Julie Burchill is a mystery to me...

 

[Fried Egg]

I don't really know why I am wading in to this discussion and my comment has little to do with the subject of feminism as such, but...

Feminism is apolitical, but it has been associated with left wing politics because right wing politics is the politics of control and authority - feminism is counter to that.

Not necessarily. Indeed, much legislation instigated to promote equality is actually the politics of control and authority. Anti discrimination policies for instance, that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, or even go so far as to advocate positive discrimination, are an exercise in control.

I'm not saying that makes it necessarily wrong, only making the point that policies of control and authority can be found on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[iansales]

Surely discrimination presupposes control? You can't do this, but you can do that; you're not allowed in there, but you can come in... I can see how forcing people not to discriminate can be seen as a controlling act, but in fact it's preventing the control imposed by those doing the discriminating.

OTOH, a left wing planned economy is the essence of control...