FWIW, “When It Changed” and The Female Man by Joanna Russ are about manless feminist utopias, although I don’t think she really dreams wistfully of killing all the men; she just made up the societies so she could play with ideas. Neither book offended me the way I get when someone assumes my son has 1.1 parents: a mother and an f-word.
No problem, margin; I was just amused at the typo.
And no worries on your willingness to argue with Andy. Once I recognize ignorance as willful, I’m unwilling to continue fighting it. I figure anyone who reads this thread can recognize who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t, and that the less we engage with Andy’s ignorance, the less an otherwise interesting discussion can get hijacked by irrelevant and inaccurate polemics.
Daniel
This is absolutely bizarre. I’ve been involved in a fair number of literary debates here on the 'Dope, but I’ve never seen someone try to criticize a book they’ve never read by comparing it to a story that doesn’t exsist.
Andy, I don’t give a fart in a high wind about feminism. Really, I don’t. But you simply do not have an argument here. You cannot discuss the merits of a book without first-hand experience with it. You simply can’t. You’re like the people who say Huckleberry Finn is racist because one of the characters is named Nigger Jim.
Bringing up The Turner Diaries or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a red herring, because there no one argues that these books are not racist. Not even the authors; the fruitloop who wrote The Turner Diaries was proud to be called a racist. If there were any debate over the content of such works, the only people who ought to be involved in the debate are the people who have actually read the books.
Look at Houston, We Have a Problem, which so far is the only book mentioned that has a discernable anti-male bias. (and one which you’d never have heard of if someone else hadn’t introduced it to the debate). I haven’t read it, either, so we’re both starting from zero, here. The story, apparently, is about three contemporary astronauts who find themselves in a distant, utopian future where men no longer exsist. You say (without having read it) that this means that the story is clearly anti-male, because the utopian society comes around after all the men die. I say, “Yeah, maybe, or maybe it’s a utopian society because they’ve had several centuries more of cultural evolution than we do. Or maybe it’s a utopia because the entire society is based on clones of less than a dozen people. Or maybe it’s a utopia because of something that none of the people who have summarized the story have bothered to mention.” The point is, I can’t know what the story is really about until I’ve read it myself. And neither can you.
The thread is turning hostile towards you not because you are debating a pack of bloody-minded gyno-supremacists, but because you are not debating fairly. You presented yourself as being knowledgable about the subject when, in fact, you have no first hand knowledge of any of the books being discussed. When presented with an opposing (and more informed) point of view, you either ignore it or accuse the poster of being biased. You constantly make assertions that you steadfastly refuse to provide any support for. And when backed into a corner, you try to divert attention by launching into equally baseless rants about feminism in general.
Again, I am not saying any of this as a feminist. I am saying it as someone with a keen interest in debate and the open-minded exchange of ideas. It may very well be that feminism as a political movement is dominated by angry, ball-busting bigots, and it may be true that they have a significant body of literature which proves this. I am more than willing to be convinced that your POV is true, but you have failed to do this. You hadn’t done the first part in the Feminazi thread before I gave up on it, and you have failed spectacularly to do the second part in this thread. If you really want to debate this topic, please, for the love of Pete, go and read the books first. Then you can start another thread where you make all the exact same assertions, but this time, you’ll actually be able to defend them. As it stands now, there’s no point in debating you because you do not have an informed opinion on the subject: you just have an agenda.
Uh, yes, I’m really saying that you have to read a book to know what that book is about.
**
Your mistake was in attempting to start a literary discussion about books you haven’t read.
**
Thank you for finally confessing that you’ve never read a single feminist science fiction novel in your life. That’s one step on the path towards finally realizing how wrong you are about…well…everything, pretty much.
I think even his secondhand knowledge is suspect. Just a few posts ago he went on at length about how Herland was a product of the times it was written in…the horrible manhating 1970s. But the quoted material in his own OP gives the correct year for that work, which is some 60 years earlier than he thought it was.
Not only has Satisfying Andy Licious never read any of the primary sources, he obviousy hasn’t done more than skim his own handpicked secondary sources!
This discussion reminds me of a conversation from the movie Metropolitan. Two characters, Tom and a girl he’s just met at a party, spend quite some time in a lively debate about the merits of Mansfield Park. The girl puts on a spirited defense of the book, but Tom always has a rebuttal ready in the form of a quote from a literary critic. In exasperation, the young lady asks him, “How many Jane Austen books have you read?”
He answers (paraphrased) “None. I don’t read fiction. I prefer literary criticism. That way, you get both the author’s and the critic’s ideas.”
The point, of course, is that when reading criticism, you don’t get both the author’s and the critic’s pov, you get the critic’s interpretation of the book and the critic’s interpretation of the author’s point, but you cannot know a book that you haven’t read yourself.
A plot summary tells you something about the plot of a book. It does not really give you any insight into whether the book works, how and why it works, or whether the book’s message may run with, counter to, or tangentially to, the plot. It’s the manner of presentation that does that. To truly know a work of art, you must experience it for yourself. Criticism helps, it can be a great help, but it cannot substitute for the first person experience.
I was thinking of that quote from Metropolitan myself. But I didn’t mention it because…well…I’ve never actually seen Metropolitan, I’ve just read reviews that mention that bit. (Really!) So I thought it would be a little too ironic to quote the movie myself. 
Really, you don’t?
Then it’s interesting that you got so involved over on Feminazi thread in the Pit. There you defended feminists and expressed an openness to have “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto” – a notorious anti-male screed – taught in colleges.
If you care so little about the topic, why start posting to that thread at all? Could you clarify that for us?
And then directly after the Feminazi thread, you apparently followed me over here. And another person besides myself has noted how combative you were when you did.
All in all, these are peculiar actions for someone who claims not to care about the topic.
Is it agains the board rules to question whether someone is a “sock puppet”?
Wrong. In fact I read that the Nation of Islam had copies of “The Protocols” for sale at one of its seminars. Obviously they weren’t calling the book racist – they were presenting it as truth, even though it’s fiction.
I see. So you reserve the right to judge a book based on outside comments made about. You admit you haven’t read “The Protocols” either, I take it. The author of that book has never been identified, hence could not plead guilty to any such charge. Yet you can judge it based on outside comments made about it.
I see.
It is interesting that you make such a strong stance on this. Because on another thread you made a judgment on “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto,” which you admit you hadn’t read and in fact hadn’t heard of. And “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto” really is something you ought to read at least a part of before venturing opinions on. It didn’t stop you then, though. Your scruples in this matter seem to apply only to other people.
Face it, people make judgments like these all the time. You, however, are being very selective about the umbrage you take.
But you, of course, don’t care about feminism. Really you don’t.
Better yet, let’s leave Tom Hanks movies out of this and get back on the topic.
Now Miller has the ability to mind read and know what I know.
As a matter of fact, I had heard of AHEM! “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” during my web search. However, the author’s pseudonym James Tiptree, Jr. made me think it was written by a man, so I didn’t include it. I later learned – not here – that the author was female, Alice Sheldon.
And none of those conditions preclude the existence of men. All of those could take place while men were alive. My question is, why have them die off in the first place? And why show that women’s lives are so much better without men?
However, if men disappear and women’s lives then turn into utopia, it raises an eyebrow on the author’s motive – at least for anyone who is not into hard-core denial.
… and the payoff of Miller’s value system – the outright lie.
I claimed to be an expert? Where was that?
Perhaps you are confusing me with DanielWithrow, who claimed to be “at least somewhat widely in the field,” though it was revealed that he had read about six books.
Perhaps you meant to chastise Daniel for making a false claim of knowledge. But instead of doing that you invited a false quote from me and then berated me for a claim I hadn’t made.
But you’re not on the side of the feminists. Really, you’re not.
I started the thread, as I’ve said, to demonstrate the existence of this sub-genre, not to set myself up as an expert. You say I’m wrong, but I have to note that **people arguing against me have admitted anti-male elements in books they have read!**And Wang-Ka, who hasn’t weighed in on either side, also noted reservations. So where there was smoke, there was, indeed, fire.
So, to recap. A feminist had claimed that feminist women-only-society books existed only in my mind. I posted here with proof, substantiated by others, that they did exist.
I said that I believed the themes of some of these works showed anti-male traits. One self-professed feminist acknowledged that. Another person not in their camp also noted it. So the point I’ve brought up has been validated by others. And even you yourself say that “Houston” has “a discernable anti-male bias.” (Though you haven’t read it. Shame on you for making a value judgment like that without reading it. Miller, Miller, Do You Read your own post?) So my suspicions about anti-male attitudes have been borne out by sources.
And you – who (ahem) does not care about feminism (cough) – why is it you are making such a fuss, again?
I think Miller protests too much.
Interesting. I note that in that thread you defended feminists then you demanded a cite on Zoe, and when I did, indeed, provide it, you clammed up, failed to criticize her, failed to criticize her man-bashing friend, and simply stopped posting there.
But you don’t care about feminism. You really don’t.
I’m curious as to why you say I didn’t prove the existence of extremist feminists. From just that thread I posted such quotes as:
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
- From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going to Far,” 1974.
Robin Morgan’s statement: “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
Susan Brownmiller: rape “is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”
So now you are on the same bandwagon as margin and CanvasShoes in insisting that anti-male attitudes by man-bashing feminists somehow don’t count.
And of course, you don’t care about feminism.
Miller, we’re prepared to listen to you as soon as you’re prepared to start telling the truth.
I did make a mistake there. I associated the anti-male themes with that era of fiction. I didn’t realize that they went farther back in feminism’s history.
So we are to assume you have – for example – never condemned Rush Limbaugh without listening to all of his broadcasts? Never criticized the NRA? Actually, I’m betting you have criticized lots of groups and sources without reading everything they put out. Which is all right – when you do it.
Any way, as I’ve noted with Miller, my opinions on anti-male themes in these works have been attested to by others on the thread. I opened a discussion on the works and my points were borne out – reluctantly – by others. Whenever someone points out the anti-male attitudes of feminists, they can be assured of a backlash from those who don’t want to face facts.
So what color are your blinders?
I understand you’re reluctance to spar with me anymore, Daniel. I’ve asked several questions you seem uncomfortable addressing.
You want to fight ignorance? Then explain to us how reading six books qualifies you as somewhat widely read in a field.
The anti-male themes you just assume exist in a book you’ve never read and know virtually nothing about, you mean? Anti-male themes like daring to present ONE and ONLY ONE male character (who is neither the sole nor the most important male character in the book) in an unfavorable light?
No, I haven’t. But even if I had, it would hardly be relevant here because you’re not being slammed for criticizing feminist science fiction without having read all of it. You’re being slammed for criticizing feminist science fiction without having read any of it. Nor have you even read your own secondary sources, as I have demonstrated above. Your ignorance is complete. You are singularly unqualified to engage in any sort of discussion on the subject at all, but you haven’t let that stop you. In all my years on this board I have never seen anyone more willfully, stubbornly, or proudly ignorant about a topic that they insisted upon spouting off about anyway.
**
No, they haven’t. The closest was DanielWithrow saying he thinks he remembers reading a book that had anti-male themes, but he can’t recall the title and it’s been so many years since he read it that he’s not sure how bad it really was. Wang-Ka had some qualms about one story, but wasn’t convinced that it was truly anti-male.
Give it up, man. You’ve lost. If you can’t realize what a fool you’re making of yourself and drop it now, you’re headed for a meltdown for sure.
Or a pit thread. After his tactics here and elsewhere, he’s rather overdue.
Satisfying Andy Licious writes:
> Is it agains the board rules to question whether someone is
> a “sock puppet”?
Actually, I believe it is. The moderators have requested that if you have reason to suspect that someone is a sock puppet, you should E-mail them rather than discuss it in a thread.
On reflection, I’m realizing that considering Bradley’s Darkover books to be an example of anti-male feminist utopian fiction is, to say the least, problematic.
The only way to stretch the definition of FUF enough to include the Darkover books is to say that FUF consists of:
- Fiction
- Enjoyed by feminists
- Describing a society that the author considers superior to ours (and it’s debatable whether Bradley considers Darkover to be superior to our society)
You can see the problem, I trust. Once we define FUF so broadly, we find that other examples in the genre include:
- Many urban fantasy novels, including Charles De Lint’s work;
- Kim Stanley Robinson’s popular SF novels
- All Star Trek episodes and novels
In other words, once we include Darkover, the pool of FUF grows so humongous that the anti-male themes become vanishingly rare.
We’d be better off with a stricter definition. I can’t imagine how such a definition could include Darkover and exclude Star Trek, however; unless someone can come up with a reasonable definition that performs this task, we’re back to square one, looking for a work of FUF with an anti-male spin.
Daniel
DanielWithrow writes:
> . . . and it’s debatable whether Bradley considers Darkover to
> be superior to our society . . .
Considered, I think you mean. She died several years ago.
SF fans (And if anyone brings up the SF-Science Fiction thing I’m leaving) have a strong tendency to over-classify things into sub-genres, especially when talking about SF itself. These aren’t sub-genres in the normal sense, (no one is famous for being a Juvenile-Near-Space-Cyberpunk writer, for instance) but are just used as ways to group a bunch of stories or books together for explanatory or argument purposes.
It’s a very varied field, after all, and many writers in it write very varied stories. I’m guessing that’s the origin of the phrase, which I haven’t heard.
Is there misandry in some SF or fantasy written by women? Sure. There’s also misogyny in some written by men. And some the other way round as well. Do people with annoying prejudices look for fiction they think supports them? Sure. And ‘healthy love life’ is not exactly on the top of the list of Characteristics That SF Fans Share, so maybe it’s a bit worse in that field than elsewhere. Also, the very nature of SF, which often involves societies created out of whole cloth, is obviously going to be influenced by the authors political and societal beliefs.
Just because it’s in there, doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the main thrust of the book, or that other parts of the book can’t be interesting. There’s a fair amount of anti-gay material in Dune, but you couldn’t accurately call it ‘Anti-Gay Dynastic Science Fiction.
If someone cared to put some effort into it, I’m sure you could find a triple handful of SF stories with fairly strong anti-male bits and moderately functional societies, and call that Feminist Utopian Fiction. Alternatively you could find a triple handful of stories where men and women both have power, and call THAT Feminist Utopian Fiction. Or were there are no gender roles. Or where the traditional gender roles are reversed, presumably with hilarity ensuing. Calling it ‘SF that explores Gender Issues’ would cut down on the argument considerably, though admittedly it doesn’t sound as snappy.
Summary: FUF isn’t a ‘true’ subgenera. (like, say, cyberpunk or space opera) The phrase could be used to describe a particular subset of SF, and probably has been. Unfortunately, the word ‘Feminist’ is used by so many people to mean different things, trying to define it would be counterproductive. (‘Utopian’ isn’t really helping, either)
That being said, a few points in pretty much random order.
Self defined ‘utopian fiction’ not written by ancient Greeks is, without any exception which I am aware, awful. It’s also not common. Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens, and most people don’t like political diatribes pretending to be narratives, anyway.
I took a fun course once on ‘Utopian and Dystopian Science Fiction.’ I can’t remember a single feature or title of ANY of the utopian half. The dystopian half was interesting, though. We, Brave New World, Linden Hills, A Handmaid’s Tale, and Neuromancer. I’d read the last two earlier, but it was still fun. Ok, Linden Hills was moderately awful, but the others were interesting. (Had a fun adventure buying it, though)
Men, as a general rule, do not come out looking good in stories where societies have only one gender, or when the male/female ratio is wildly skewed. (with the possible exception of Phoenix the Warrior) Of course, they usually aren’t the ones writing them, and it’s not like they’re that common. Single-sex societies, that is, not men.
A lot of SF written in the 60’s and early 70’s is embarrassingly dated politics-wise. This really shouldn’t be taken as indicative of SF in general. Apparently there’s a lot of alien societies out there, living in worldwide hippy communes that bear a starting resemblance to condescendingly harmless stereotypes of Native Americans or Africans, waiting for the sad day when their wonderful societies will be destroyed by the slightest contact with white guys and their hatreds and evil, who will then turn on their oppressors, but in the process become just like them. (The Word for the World is Forrest almost put me off of LaGuin completely) But then, a lot of stories don’t age well, and the 60’s aged less gracefully than most decades.
I was kind of hoping to get more discussion on Houston . . . The description does sound like it was saying “men have dark evil buried inside, but women don’t,” even if that wasn’t the main thrust of the story. Of course, a short description of A Boy and His Dog could sound as if the theme was ‘Women are meat,’ so I’m not going to decide just yet . . .
Though judging someone on what they do if you massively alter their decision-making process with drugs is, ah, an interesting interpretation of justice. “Massive amounts of speed release your natural tendencies to babble like an idiot, pace madly, and pick fights with everyone. Pot releases your natural tendencies to play with action figures, think you’re a riot, and eat brownies. You’re FAR to unstable and lazy to be allowed to join our society!”
Or was that the point? ‘Societies judge outsiders by harsher standards than they hold themselves to?’ ‘The ‘safe course’ isn’t always moral?’ ‘People/(women) can be as awful acting in fear as (men) in rage?’ Something like that?
The fact that the author liked some men really isn’t relevant. I’d freely admit that the world would be a better place without soft drinks and junk food, but you can have my Dr. Pepper and buffalo wings when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
–
“That’s the Women’s Planet? Isn’t it awful gaudy?”
Ura-Maru writes:
> And ‘healthy love life’ is not exactly on the top of the list of
> Characteristics That SF Fans Share, so maybe it’s a bit worse in
> that field than elsewhere.
Having spent a large part of my adult life hanging around with science fiction fans, I don’t think that’s quite true. SF fans may have trouble finding a girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever, but after having found such they have a love life that’s about as happy as most people is.
> Unfortunately, the word ‘Feminist’ is used by so many people to
> mean different things, trying to define it would be
> counterproductive.
I think that one of the problems in this thread is the uselessness of the term “feminism.” It’s used in too many different ways to be an accurate description of any particular person’s beliefs.
> The Word for the World is Forrest almost put me off of LaGuin
> completely
“The Word for World is Forest” is probably the worst thing Le Guin ever wrote. In general, any time the Vietnam War is a metaphor for something or something is a metaphor for the Vietnam War, there are likely to be problems with the story.
I’ve tried. I asked that the thread be locked on Wednesday, when Margin carried her flame war from the Pit over to here. The moderator, if he’s there, does not seem to be responding.