Feminist Utopian Fiction

Zoe, for women in nurturing roles, check out Woman on the Edge of Time, The Fifth Sacred Thing, Four Ways to Forgiveness, The Kin of Ata Are Waiting for You, and maybe even Left Hand of Darkness (the co-protagonist, bigendered, is nurturing both as an asexual creature and as a female). My experience is not at all that feminist utopias exclude nurturing females; rather, they have nurturing females, strong females, nurturing males, strong males.

Andy, I’m not sure why you think I’m excluding anti-male works from the field. I’m just discussing the ones I’ve read from the list you gave, and pointing out that not a single one has the only theme you describe in your OP. That you don’t mention other themes, and that you pooh-pooh the idea of gender equality as a theme, suggests that you’ve got a grudge you’re bearing.

Surely there are some anti-male feminist utopias out there. But I’ve read at least somewhat widely int he field and have yet to come across them.

Daniel

I’m a young feminist, and I have read several of the books mentioned, but it’s because I’m a big ol’ geek who reads lots of SF, not because I’m a feminist. (Although I do seek out SF with strong female characters.) AFAIK, my feminist buddies who are not into SF haven’t read many of these, with the exception of The Handmaid’s Tale.

I’ll also point out that many–though not all–of these books were written in the 1970s or 1980s, and may actually reflect an older, “2nd wave” feminist sensibility rather than the attitude of young (teens and 20s) feminists today. IMO, Marge Piercy’s earlier work does, as does much of Sheri Tepper’s.

This is precisely what I wanted to point out-- the historical context of these works.

In a very incomplete nutshell: at the time the radical feminist movement based a lot of its thought and rhetoric on the nationalism and idealism of the '60s, and frankly, that’s where muich of separatist thought came from.

Remember that even the concepts women were equal to men, could participate equally in the workforce, or hell, even claim their own sexuality were considered radical or even heretical ideas. Struggling against this mindset was at best difficult. It’s no wonder that many women (and not a few men) started exploring alternatives to the prevailing consciousness about gender.

Most of “mainstream” feminism was about changing existing society to fit women in (and to a pretty good extent I think they managed it). Radical feminism OTOH was about radically changing society to fit feminist ideals. IE, it was a revolutionary concept at a time when everyone was throwing out all sorts of “revolutions” to claim “power for the people.” In short, BS, but that’s the excesses of the 60’s for you.

However, I don’t think the longing for the perfect society where you could be female and still be a full human being was inauthentic. I think that’s where the idea of feminist utopias come from. Don’t forget that a lot of the early radical feminists were also lesbian, and the 70’s weren’t exactly the least homophobic time ever. You really can’t talk about feminist utopian literature without addressing how some truly virulent homophobia formed much of it. Creating worlds of women who could be themselves, love women (and egalitarian men) was a pretty appealing concept.

That being said, I think feminism has evolved immensely from its early naive idealism. I know Andy is disturbed by the concept of the first prerequisite of a perfect world being without men, and hell, I don’t blame him. I was never a separatist and really hate having to defend their ideas on any level. Nonetheless, separatism is hardly alive and well these days, Alix Dobkin and her tiny band of followers aside. It pretty much killed itself off during the AIDS crisis, its basic argument being that gay men get what they deserved being untenable for even the most radical feminist. After that the queer movement exploded, transgender issues finally got some attention, men started using feminist language to describe their own politics, and exploring how masculinity and femininity interconnected became more the darling of academic feminism had to evolve to take these new(ish) issues into account.

As for mainstream feminism-- getting real here-- their goals of “adapt society, don’t overthow it” didn’t really change except in the sense that most of the collective started listening to women who were poor, of color, and from other countries, and finally got a clue that maybe global and economic issues were important.

If feminist utopian literature is studied, it’s studied as a document of a specific place and time in feminist history, not as a guideline.

None of the ones that I have read or have heard of do.

**

All of the ones that I have read or have heard of do.

I feel I should also mention that I am unaware of any “things sure are better since we got rid of all the men!” novels. There may be some out there, but I have never seen one. None of the titles in this thread that I am familiar with fit that description. In fact, the only one I know of that even deals with a woman-run society in which there are no men at all is Gilman’s Herland. That society is male-free due to past tragedy and geographic isolation, and the female citizens are not hostile to male visitors who discover their country.

Given my posts, burundi’s posts, and Lamia’s posts, I’m curious – has anyone out there actually read any androphobic feminist utopian novel? Andy claims they exist, but it seems like no one here has first-hand experience of them.

It is an interesting point that they seem to have been written in the sixties and seventies, for the most part. The Fifth Sacred Thing, however, is early nineties, if I recall correctly, and I think Butler wrote her vaguely vaguely utopian novels in the nineties.

I suspect the utopian novel genre is pretty sparsely populated these days altogether; anyone familiar with how it’s doing? Maybe in our postmodern age the idea of a perfect society is hard to swallow :).

Daniel

To be honest, I can’t think of any genuine utopian novels, feminist or otherwise. Well, okay, Thomas More’s Utopia, obviously, but past that… How do you write a novel set in a perfect society and develop any sort of interesting conflict or drama?

I guess Star Trek counts as a utopia, but that just proves my point about it being pretty much impossible to generate anything interesting in such a setting… :stuck_out_tongue:

Indeed. Maybe that’s why margin thought he was making them up. Given the existence of vanity publishing I wouldn’t doubt the existence of any genre altogether, but if there actually were any significant number of mass-market (or even cult classic) androphobic feminist utopian novels then I think I would have either seen one myself or spoken to someone who had. I’ve read quite a few feminist science fiction novels, but not a one was about “how wonderful it would be” if “all men ceas[ed] to exist”.

If anyone here has ever actually read or even heard of any such book, it would be nice if they could give us a title or something.

Herland is a genuine utopia. It’s also nearly a century old…you’re right, people don’t really write these things any more. Herland is a decent read, but it’s not exactly a page-turner. More of a travel guide to Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s idea of the perfect society. I will note that the absence of men was not an integral part of this society. The women of Herland are reluctant to open the borders of their isolated country to the outside world (especially after they hear how non-utopian it is), but they don’t seem to have any problem with the idea of men in general. The three male explorers who discover this all-female society are welcomed warmly and treated with respect, and at the end of the novel one of them even chooses to (and is allowed to!) stay with the women rather than go home.

DanielWithrow writes:

> Given my posts, burundi’s posts, and Lamia’s posts, I’m
> curious – has anyone out there actually read any androphobic
> feminist utopian novel? Andy claims they exist, but it seems like
> no one here has first-hand experience of them.

There’s the short story “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” by James Tiptree, Jr. (a.k.a. Alice Sheldon). Within the story, it’s asserted that it’s better that men all died off and only women survive. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Tiptree herself believes that that’s the case. People sometimes think that science fiction is meant as prediction. It’s not. It’s meant more as philosophical/scientific/sociological/psychological speculation. Tiptree may have been just speculating about an all-female society.

Miller writes:

> To be honest, I can’t think of any genuine utopian novels,
> feminist or otherwise.

Just to name one, there’s Walden Two by B. F. Skinner. Skinner certainly seems to seriously think that the society proposed would be utopian.

John Varley’s nine worlds stories, particularly those that occur later on in the continuity, have a setting that’s pretty close to being utopian. If one uses the definition of feminist as being a society in which men and women are exactly equal, then this one certainly qualifies. Medical science has progressed to the point at which doctors are merely skilled technicians, people are nearly immortal. The most common causes of death are suicide, accident, and murder, in that order, and murder is extraordinarily rare. Literally everything about ones physicality can be chosen, including sex, and body modifications are relatively inexpensive.

This leads to a society in which most adults live lives switching from one sex to the other as it suits them. People have a natural sexuality that may be equally male and female, may be slightly balanced more toward one or the other, resulting in a person who stays female 70% of the time and male the other 30%, with a minority who are so dominantly one or the other that they lead their entire lives as a single sex.

The result is a society in which the genders are still different, women are feminine and men masculine, but are entirely equal. Indeed, it’s implied that getting to choose one’s gender actually tends to enhance feminine and masculine aspects of those genders. The message is clear; women and men being equal doesn’t mean that they have to be the same.

The stories themselves usually have female protaganists. Some of them focus on the idea of changing sexes, male to female being more common (“Picnic on Nearside”, Steel Beach). Only one story I know of shows a female to male transition, and that is set early in the continuity when it is still uncommon enough that married couples still exist. A woman wants her husband to share in breastfeeding their child by having lactating breasts installed. When he balks at this, she goes on to become gradually more and more masculine, which eventually destroys their marriage (later in the continuity, long term male-female marriage has ceased to exist altogether). Again, the message seems to be that the differences between the sexes are good for us.

One story (“The Barbie Murders”) details a sub-culture commune in which everyone is surgically altered to have exactly the same, androgynous look. It’s revealed that most of the residents don’t really buy the idea or quickly become disillusioned. Again, the message is that the differences between the sexes are a good thing, and when sex roles are both rigidly defined and unescapable, for a woman to be equal to a man she must become more like a man.

By the late stages of the continuity, fathers have ceased to exist as anything other than sperm donors. When a person is ready to be a parent, that person becomes female and gets pregnant by a trusted friend (who may have to become male to do this). Being chosen to father anothers child is a great privilege, and chosing the right father is important, but once conception occurs, the father no longer has any status, and seldom has any contact with the child. “Parent” and “mother” become synonymous. But because sex changes are so common, a child’s mother may at times be female and other times male. The message here seems to be that infants need a mother, but as children grow older, they need one good parent, and whether that parent is male or female is of little importance.

Lest anyone doubt that Varley is a committed feminist, one only need read the short story “Mannequin” to remove all doubt.

I need to proofread better. I somehow switched the concluding sentences to two paragraphs. These two should read as follows:
The stories themselves usually have female protaganists. Some of them focus on the idea of changing sexes, male to female being more common (“Picnic on Nearside”, Steel Beach). Only one story I know of shows a female to male transition, and that is set early in the continuity when it is still uncommon enough that married couples still exist. A woman wants her husband to share in breastfeeding their child by having lactating breasts installed. When he balks at this, she goes on to become gradually more and more masculine, which eventually destroys their marriage (later in the continuity, long term male-female marriage has ceased to exist altogether). Again, the message is that the differences between the sexes are a good thing, and when sex roles are both rigidly defined and unescapable, for a woman to be equal to a man she must become more like a man.

One story (“The Barbie Murders”) details a sub-culture commune in which everyone is surgically altered to have exactly the same, androgynous look. It’s revealed that most of the residents don’t really buy the idea or quickly become disillusioned. Again, the message seems to be that the differences between the sexes are good for us.

I think that is a very valid point. The worst of the anti-male wave seems to have past.

A measure of their popularity is that you can google for “feminist utopian fiction” and find page after page related to the subject, including many sites devoted solely to the topic.

Now when you said “It doesn’t seem to me that a utopia based on the superiority of one sex over the other is a feminist ideal,” my reaction is that this is precisely how many of these authors do think – otherwise they would not be creating fictional worlds to demonstrate their arguments. Feminists have been allowed to self-define themselves as wanting equality. Yet in their actions, we rarely see them advocating equality when they have the upper hand, as in child custody cases. Also, you would have to search far and wide for a feminist who has actively supported a man’s right to work when faced with anti-male discrimination such as quotas and affirmative action. I’ve had to sit through all sorts of lectures from female executives who feel that women are, by nature, more suited for executive advancement because women are more “nurturing” than men – in other words, they are putting into action the feminist utopian idea that women are better suited to run things. (The irony is that those female execs, when faced with disagreement, were far more tyrannicall and intolerant than any male boss I’ve ever seen. As far as feminist utopian fiction is concerned, I’d say that it must be easy to run a society when everyone is just like you. It’s a bit harder when people are different. Hence the proclivity of such novels to reduce or eliminate men and set up artificial situations in which there are no serious conflicts. There are so many feminist utopian novels because things don’t work to their suiting in the real world.)

You might be thinking of the “feminist” in “feminist utopian fiction” as a noun, while I think of it as an adjective. Perhaps the label “feminist utopian fiction” is not ideal – seeing that people tend to include dystopias, not-quite-utopias and other societies under the label – but it seems to be the label currently in use. I see the term as describing fiction that lays out feminist ideals. As such, it might not have any feminist in it and might not have any people in it – it could tell a parable with animals, for example – or with alien races. It could have human characters living under a brutal patriarchal rule, hence there would be no feminists at all in it – the author sets up her characters to make an argument.

A novel would have to have some resonance in our lives, or else why write it? I think LeGuin was coming from the era where feminists argued that men and women were equal (rather than the later stages when feminisms was swept with the women good-men bad mentality). So she wrote up the ideal of a functioning society where people are literally changing sex roles without a problem.

The connection is strong. Feminists kept proposing ideal fictional societies. Meanwhile, kibbutzim had already attempted a thorough leveling and eradication of gender roles – and it didn’t last. Moreover, it didn’t last precisely because so many of the women wanted to return to traditional gender roles: mothering their own children, living under the same roof with their children, working at home while men worked outside it, etc.

Kibbutzim were rooted in theories going back a century or more that marriage and children were what kept women down. Eliminate marriage, liberate women from raising children, and we would have a workers’ paradise. So in kibbutzim, children were removed from the parents at birth and raised by career staff in special nurseries and schools. Visits between parents and children were limited.

It was the feminist utopia precisely as so many socialist writers had demanded it.

And woman thought it stunk.

They tore down the system so they could get back to those supposedly oppressive roles supposedly imposed on them by the vile patriarchy.

So whenever you pick up a work of feminist utopian fiction, toss in a huge grain of salt and just remember that we’ve already tried it.

Satisfying Andy Licious,

I have never once met a woman (let alone one who called herself a feminist) who believed any of those things. (I work at a big government agency where I frequently have female supervisors.) I’m not saying that there aren’t women who do believe them, but I find it hard to believe that you are constantly meeting women with those beliefs. I think that you’re exaggerating when you say that you frequently meet women such as you describe in your last post.

It may well be true that most feminist utopian fiction has proposed unworkable societies, but then so has most utopian fiction of any type. As a general rule, utopias don’t work. Can anybody name a single piece of utopian fiction ever published where the ideas were later tried in a real society where they actually worked?

Uh, no. That’s not it at all, but your mistatement of what occurred is a very interesting glimpse at how your mind works. You claimed that ‘feminism wants’ and listed all sorts of things. You repeatedly refused to provide a cite for those statements, which you termed ‘common knowledge.’

I’ve heard of feminist utopian fiction. But it has nothing to do with backing up Andy’s claims that feminism, for example, wants men eradicated. It certainly didn’t serve to deflect attention from the lack of cites in his argument.

But, carry on, Andy. Grind that ax.

When I made up my list, I included feminist utopian fiction of all stripes. You don’t. So let’s see which of us is painting a truer picture.

When you say “you don’t mention other themes” you are actually and directly lying. Read my OP and retract your statement, please.

Also, could you clarify your familiarity with this field? Earlier you say “I’ve read a good half-dozen or more examples from the field,” and now you claim that you have read “at least somewhat widely in the field.” That’s all pretty fuzzy, and I don’t think that a lifetime experience limited to six books qualifies you as a scholar.

As for allegedly bearing a “grudge” against bigotry – you don’t? When you see works that advocate a sort of gender ethnic cleansing, are you still capable of slapping on your male-feminist blinders and saying, “Oh, they don’t really mean that.”

Also, I always amazed by people who enter threads here with comments like “Gee, I’ve never seen this” as though it means “That doesn’t exist.”

Once again, as I said in my previous post, I’m always amazed by people who enter threads with the comment “I’ve never seen this” to mean “this doesn’t exist.”

Once again, as I said in my previous post, I’m always amazed by people who enter threads with the comment “I’ve never seen this” to mean “this doesn’t exist.”

If you haven’t experienced women like this, you owe something to the people who fought for a long time to rein in the anti-male pogrom in the work place.

Have you ever faced affirmative action discrimination?

If not, do you believe it does not exist?

That comes awfully close to Godwin’s useage, there, dude. Gotta love that Nazi imagery. Good job.