Either your cognitive processes function–or they don’t.
Ok, so you know it when you see it. But this same common sense argument works the other way too.
If a noted environmentalist writes a story where a virus kills all the human beings in the world, one can use common sense and make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint.
If a noted Christian writes a story in which a virus kills all the homosexuals in the world, one can use common sense and make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint.
If a noted Pan-Arabist writes a story in which a virus kills all the Jews in the world, one can use common sense and make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint.
And if a noted feminist writes a story in which a virus kills all the men in the world, one can use common sense there too.
And all of this in spite of the fact that (quite possibly) most environmentalists don’t hate people; most Christians don’t hate homosexuals; most Pan-Arabists don’t hate Jews; and most feminists don’t hate men.
You could try reading it. Have you read any of Tiptree’s work? “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” is a creepy story, and, IMO, definitely not intended to represent a utopia. Yes, the women have found a way to create and perpetuate a society without men, but it’s not presented as an unambiguous good.
From what you listed, no, you can’t use common sense to figure anything out. You would have to read the actual stories and see whether or not they seem to be advocating that the situation would be a positive change. Otherwise, you’re just projecting your own beliefs.
Yes. Have you read The Turner Diaries and Hunter?
The future in The Turner Diaries is not presented as unambiguously good either.
So you don’t agree with this statement:?
Uh, yes, I agree with that statement. I just wouldn’t declare that it’s always true without having read the work in question. For instance, it could turn out that the Christian’s story was about how the lack of gays and Jews is a terrible thing with many unforeseen consequences; then they probably an offensive hate-filled polemic. I wouldn’t call anything an “obvious assumption” just from the information you’ve listed.
Well, that’s it for me, folks. I don’t think we’re ever going to get through here, and brazil84’s hijack of what was a very interesting thread is really quite irritating.
Sure, there’s a difference between “probably” and “definitely.”
That’s why I was careful to say “reasonable guess” in Post # 122.
To me “obvious assumption” means about the same thing as “reasonable guess.”
But if you disagree, please substitute “reasonable guess” in for “obvious assumption” in my earlier post.
How about you prove your assumptions then. We’ve been very patient with you.
Reasonable guess and obvious assumption are different things.
How about you look up “Fiction” and “Political Manifesto” for yourself, they are not obscure references.
Unless you can show interviews or statements from Tiptree where she admits to being an extremist or sepratist feminist, then anything you ASS U ME (old joke, but relevant here) about her speculative fiction is just that.
Speculation.
I’ve given you a counter example where an author wrote speculative fiction that does not match with his public persona (S. Fry). You ignored it.
Answer MY questions if you want me to take yours seriously.
By your arguments, this thread is as bad as the Turner diaries and Hunter. All three suggest the complete removal of one sector of society. This thread does not present the complete removal of either gender as unambiguously good either
Tiptrees story does not have the same basis. Again, this has been stated before. It speculates about one gender being removed from a dominant to a subdominant position within soiety.
*Why does a Science Fiction story offend you so much, when this thread doesn’t?
*What’s the problem, exactly? That the author can imagine a world where men are not dominant? That she can imagine a world where they have to be rescued by women
To me, they are pretty close. However, if you think they are different, please just substitute “reasonable guess” for “obvious assumption” in my earlier post.
Dictionary.com defines “manifesto” as “a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization”
I don’t think that definition would apply to “Hunter” or “The Turner Diaries” which, on the surface, are fictional stories. I did not fully read either of them as I was too disgusted.
I said from the beginning that you can’t be sure what an author thinks. I even used the word “assumption”
My answer to your question is “I don’t know”
What exactly do you think my argument is?
Like I said before, product of hate. Hate is ugly even when justified.
But the ‘hate’ is only your interpretation.
That’s the point. You have no clue what her intent was, you’ve made assumptions and misrepresented the facts of the story (*not *all men die, the world is *not *better without them). You have not come up with a single shred of evidence that Tiptree was an extremist, or that she advocated seperatism, the storywas not published though a political organisation (as The Turner Diaries was).
Your argument seems to be for this story and it’s author to be condemned as hate mongering, because *you *don’t like it.
Hate IS ugly - yours as much as anyone else’s.
What exactly were my representations that were wrong?
No that’s not my argument.
Are you giving up on your claim that The Turner Diaries is a political manifesto?
You never know for sure what the author thinks.
But let me ask you a few questions:
If a noted environmentalist writes a story where a virus kills all the human beings in the world, can one make a guess about his or her viewpoint?
If a noted Christian writes a story in which a virus kills all the homosexuals in the world, can one make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint?
If a noted Pan-Arabist writes a story in which a virus kills all the Jews in the world, can one make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint?
The Earth is not all-female in the story.
No, reinforcing it. The Turner Diaries were published through an organisation that followed the principles stated in the book, therefore, a political manifesto.
Again, in the story, women reintroduce men to their society and expend effort to save the ‘heroes’. If anything, this gives the impression (to me) that Tiptree finds value in both men and women.
Now your argument seems to be “If Tiptree wrote a different story, it would be as bad as something I haven’t read.”
You may assume that she is a feminist, there is literature to back that up. You may not assume she is writing from a viewpoint of hate. That is conjecture.
As you keep on saying:
Or how she was feeling when she wrote it. If you see hate, that’s only your projection.
Here’s a question: If an author hated men so much that she thought the world would be better off without them, would she pass herself off as one? And continue using a male identity even after her real identity were known?
All I have to add is this:
If all women died I’d have to find a nice cuddly tree with a knothole in it 
Yes, especially since they tend towards the “men are all demonically evil”, or “it’s not violence or genocide if the targets are male” attitude.
That always makes me think of Niven’s A World Out of Time, mostly set after an immortality treatment was discovered that froze people at pre-adolescence. So there was no interest in “fraternizing with the enemy”. Which is why there are no more Girls, and only a few Boys left.
Nonsense; it’s been too long to remember the titles, but I’ve read, or rather skimmed the stuff. Men being rounded up into disintegration chambers ( the solution to violence being to kill all men, you see; it’s not violent to kill all men, apparently ), another where men are killed by an engineered virus and the few resistant men hunted down by women, a few others. Actually, what always struck me as least likely is that the majority of women didn’t splatter every feminist alive against the nearest wall. You want to create a backlash against feminism, killing every father, son, brother, and husband would do it.
It does for a large number of feminists, which is one reason why the term has fallen into disrepute. And no, I don’t think it’s “just a few” who think that way. There seems to be less than there was, but for a while the manhating seemed inescapable and positively demented. I’d pick up a book on something that seemed gender neutral, like genetic engineering, and I’d get an essay on the evils of medicine because it’s male and against mother nature.
I simply see no evidence, beyond the assertions of apologists, that it was a small minority that hated men; as far as I can tell, for a while it was the norm among feminists.
According to the Wikipedia article, “The one male on board, named Andy, seems strangely unmasculine. . . . The resulting almost communal maleless society has settled into a peaceful, yet strangely moribund pattern”
So I’m not sure what your point is.
The definition of “manifesto” doesn’t seem to depend on who the materials are published through. And you refuse to tell me what your own definition is.
Is that a yes or a no?
(According to the Wikipedia article, “they [the male astronauts] are soon drugged into submission and realize that they are most certainly not headed home, and the crew of the Gloria do not intend for them to survive. They are perfectly happy living without men, and the astronauts are merely being studied, pressed for any useful information, and (in the case of the overamorous astronaut) used to obtain sperm samples, presumably to introduce fresh genetic material and create new genotypes.”)
I don’t know what your point is here.
But let me ask you a few questions:
If a noted environmentalist writes a story where a virus kills all the human beings in the world, can one make a guess about his or her viewpoint?
If a noted Christian writes a story in which a virus kills all the homosexuals in the world, can one make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint?
If a noted Pan-Arabist writes a story in which a virus kills all the Jews in the world, can one make a reasonable guess about his or her viewpoint?
Possibly. She may feel that it gives her more credibility to write using a man’s name. I’ve seen plenty of white supremacists try to pass themselves of as Jews.
They have a male in the crew. They may believe the world is better off without the old fashioned crew from circa 1976, but they have males in their society.
Repeating the same questions does not improve the logic.
You cannot guess her motivation for writing the story. That is the factual answer for General Questions.
You have no foundation for using the word ‘hate’.
You still haven’t explained what your point is.
If you want to guess, open a thread in IMHO.
I’m done with this.
The Wikipedia article says that the Earth is almost all female and that the males that do exist are “strangely unmasculine.” Perhaps I should have said “essentially all-female” instead of “all-female.” Please consider my earlier posts altered accordingly, and my points still stand.
However it is interesting that you refuse to answer them. Earlier you said “Answer MY questions if you want me to take yours seriously.” Well, I’ve tried to answer your questions.
Can you ever guess any author’s motivations? According to your reasoning, you can if the book is a “political manifesto.” However you refused to tell me your definition of a “political manifesto.”
Yes I have.
Please supply your actual “evidence.”
(And I had no idea that you and brazil84 had so much in common.)