| UP (discussion topics) | TOP (Cherryh-homepage) |
message 0090

Parts of this message can be found in the following threads:
>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: cherryhlist
>Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 9:10:44 GMT

> From: zink@panix.com (David Zink)
> 
> Not to criticize too heavily though; despite their failure by modern
> standards, most of the old SF writers were notorious feminists and
> anti-racists by the standards of their day.  But SF stays in print a long
> time, and it shows.
> So many of the newer writers seem to have so little inherent sexism, that I
> think it is becoming a dead issue.

	Well, I'd say *some* of the newer writers. Unfortunately, many
just unthinkingly use the social paradigms they themselves were brought up
in/live in, seemingly in the belief that this is normative. (Lackey is a
perfect example). Older writers who are still writing don't seem to have
realised how much the western world has changed -- McCaffrey's women still
find ultimate fulfillment when they've got a man (preferably a man who'll
keep them continually pregnant).
	You're certainly right about some older writers being ahead of their
time. I think the problem is that many readers still think they are :-)
While the portrayal of gender roles in past SF may have been revolutionary,
is it still so today? Considering Le Guin's essay on _The Left Hand of Darkness
(the essay has a commentary written some years later), how would SF writers
'do over' their work, if they had the chance?

 
> I should point out that Cherry's stuff is sometimes actively feminist.  For
> instance, and this is something I thought obvious, but judging from past
> traffic it really needs to be pointed out:
> 
> Male Hani are not what you think they are.  So many times I have heard them
> described as essentially useless, mating machines.  Quite the opposite is
> true.  Male Hani are just as capable as female Hani, however their society
> trains them to function in certain sorts of roles, in a certain sort of
> fashion, that makes of them sex objects and little else.  This is a quite
> obvious parallel of certain human societies I can think of, though, of
> course, with the sexes reversed.  

	What's interesting is that the fact that it is a parallel is so
often ignored. If it's so awful that this invisible social oppression of
men takes place in Hani society, you'd think perhaps a few readers might
notice something similar around them...
	What makes hani society more real, of course, is that it's not a
simple role reversal. Hani men have the chance to become much more powerful
than a human woman of the first half  of this century (trying to find some
historical period that might best match the social expectations). Legally,
someone like Kohan Chanur or Kyhm Mahn has enormous power and authority.
Hani lords may be pampered figureheads who don't do any of the real business,
but their consent seems required for business ventures, their signature is
presumably needed on documents, they contract alliances through marrying off
their sisters. It's strongly implied that a stupid lord can ruin a clan, so
they must have control over the assets. In general, just like in Terran
societies, the male head of household has authority (the legal right to wield
power) while the women have power (but not necessarily the legal right to use
it, eg by gainsaying the lord). Granted, most Hani lords may just sit around
sipping iced drinks while their sisters indicate where to sign, but socially,
they are the ones with authority.
	I think it's one of the important points of the series when Pyanfar
suddenly realises this isn't 'natural', it's a social construction. (And
one of the most telling points of the series, too, is when Hallan Meras
thinks back on his childhood -- he was socialised as per our category of
'girl', his sisters as per our category 'boy').

> As for creating twisted female characters, I am amazed that people can
> reference Cyteen without noticing that the Elder Ariane is among the most
> vicously twisted characters Cherryh ever wrote.

	She is unpleasant, immoral and downright nasty, alright, but is
she 'worse' because she's a woman? Her unpleasant political shenanigans
seem fairly gender-neutral, but I think in her private life, the reader
may see her more negatively due to their own cultural spctacles. This isn't
to excuse her in any way, but I just wonder whether her treatment of the
Warricks in general (and I'm including Paul and Grant) and Justin in particular
would be as shocking if the main actors had been an older male authority
figure and a 17-year old woman. Or would that just seem more 'normal'?

			Lesley