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

Gender roles in C.J. Cherryh's writing; incl. Azi and aliens (huge thread!)

>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: cherryhlist
>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 13:46:58 GMT

I'd like to ask people what they feel about Cherryh's portrayal of her male characters. So many men on the net seem to feel she gives men a bum deal, making them have emotions and all. One fellow I was in communication with didn't like any of the male characters because they were basically too wimpy and he couldn't identify with any of them, or see them being good 'SO' material. I pointed out that a lot of Cherryh's male characters have had traumatic experiences, and thus are just reacting in what one might think is a realistic way. (I mean, come on, a kid gets gang-raped and you think it's not going to affect his life?)
So, what do you think of Cherryh's male characters? Are they too wimpy? Too emotional? Is it just that perhaps she isn't taking current American models as normative? (I know lots of men who seem very Cherryhish, maybe she's been in Ireland :-) How do you think she succeeds with more mature, 'conventional' male characters (Conrad Mazian, Giraud Nye, Lt. Graff, Morris Bird, Angelo Konstantin, Edmund Porey, Tom Edgars, Maj. Janz, Yanni Schwartz, etc, etc) And if I can name all those 'conventional' male characters off the top of my head, how come "all" of Cherryh's men are criticised for being 'unrealistic' due to being unconventional?

					Lesley

view full message

>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 22:27 PST
>Subject: cherryhlist:Male Protagonists
>From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)

Lesley writes:

> I'd like to ask people what they feel about Cherryh's portrayal of her male
> characters. So many men  on the net seem to feel she gives men a bum deal,
> making them have emotions and all.

I don't have a problem with the male characters. Her male protagonists do tend to be somewhat less that the sturdy "steely-eyed, square-jawed" male protagonists of other writers' works, but the universe is full of men who don't fit that obviously heroic stereotype.

It might be easier and more fun to identify with (ie. daydream about being) the hero for whom everything always goes right (even torture and injuries don't slow him down or muss his hair), but if that was all I wanted, I could read hero comics. Oops, I mean: graphic novels". :)

There are times when I'm in the mood for that "easy" reading: a SF novel with a simple plot, a simple hero, and a happy ending. There are other times when I won't be satisfied with that. At such times, I'm more in the mood for "Downbelow Station", or even "40000 in Gehenna". When I'm in that sort of mood, I do enjoy the male protagonists, with all their psychological problems and inadequacies--and their hidden strengths.

> How do you think she succeeds with more mature, 'conventional' male
> characters (Conrad Mazian, Giraud Nye, Lt. Graff, Morris Bird, Angelo
> Konstantin, Edmund Porey, Tom Edgars, Maj. Janz, Yanni
> Schwartz, etc, etc) And if I can name all those 'conventional' male
> characters off the top of my head, how come "all" of Cherryh's men are
> criticised for being 'unrealistic' due to being unconventional?

Maybe she's not interested in writing "yet another heroic-male SF novel". Should every writer ignore male protagonists who aren't Hollywood hero material? I think it's great that some writers are writing about characters who differ from the mainstream protagonists.

The above list of male characters shows that Cherryh does acknowledge their existence in the universe. She just doesn't focus on them. That's okay, since there are enough other SF writers who do focus on them. :)

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca

view full message

>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: cherryhlist
>Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 13:13:03 GMT

> >From: Nick Janow (who shows his impeccable taste by agreeing with me :-)

> There are times when I'm in the mood for that "easy" reading: a SF novel with
> a simple plot, a simple hero, and a happy ending.  There are other times when
> I won't be satisfied with that.  At such times, I'm more in the mood for
> "Downbelow Station", or even "40000 in Gehenna".  When I'm in that sort of
> mood, I do enjoy the male protagonists, with all their psychological problems
> and inadequacies--and their hidden strengths.

Why do you think she is described as having 'unrealistic' male characters? Every time a discussion of her books comes up on the net, several people will more or less say all her male characters stink. Why do they ignore the existence of characters like the ones I listed? Surely someone like Mazian would satisfy calls for 'realistic' men (you know, the ones who go round committing outrages and subjugating planets :-) What is it about the other male characters that arouses irritation in some readers? Do people feel that children, traumatised young adults,azi and so on should all be 'he-men'?

> Maybe she's not interested in writing "yet another heroic-male SF novel".
> Should every writer ignore male protagonists who aren't Hollywood hero
> material?

Obviously not, but most writers unfortunatly do. I recently had the misfortune to have a copy of Poul Anderson's _Orion Shall Rise_ pressed upon me with high praiseThe insipid, stereotypical characterization made me give up about half way through. To confirm my suspicions about where the plot was going I peeked at the end and found Mr Manly Man, male lead and Ms Amazon (transformed into Miss Lean-On-His-Shoulder), female ditto, were about to live happily ever after. With Cherryh I wouldn't have been guessing things 200 pages in advance, and (thankfully) I wouldn't have been faced with a sail-into-the-sunset ending.
Anyhow, I'd far prefer a character like Nhi Vanye or Justin Warrick than a 'Hollywood hero' type. You could probably have a conversation with most of Cherryh's male characters -- something it's difficult to imagine with some other author's creations.

				Lesley

view full message

>From: nancy ott <ott@ansoft.com>
>Subject: cherryhlist - "Manly Men"
>Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 10:09:03 EST

(...)

 
>       Why do you think she is described as having 'unrealistic' male
> characters? Every time a discussion of her books comes up on the net, several
> people will more or less say all her male characters stink. Why do they
> ignore the existence of characters like the ones I listed? Surely someone
> like Mazian would satisfy calls for 'realistic' men (you know, the ones
> who go round committing outrages and subjugating planets :-) What is it about
> the other male characters that arouses irritation in some readers?

But almost none of these "he-man" types are major characters. Cherryh relegates most of the "normal" guys to the sidelines, and gives the spotlight to men that one individual I spoke with called "screw-ups, flakes and wimps." Most of her male protagonists have been severly traumatized at some point in their lives; occasionally they are just nice guys in bad situations. Very few of them are traditional, "manly" men. (I'm not counting azi and aliens, who have entirely different psychologies.) The only major "viewpoint" characters I can think of that fit this description are Ben Pollard from Heavy Time & Hellburner, the sculptor from Wave Without a Shore (whose name I can't remember), and Sten Duncan from the Faded Sun series. Morris Bird (Heavy time) and Jurgen Graf (Hellburner) also fall into this category, though they aren't given as much space as the other characters.

I think a lot of people who read sf/fantasy do so because it gives them a chance to feel heroic and capable, at least until they put down the book and get back to real life. Many read it in order to escape. (I know I started out that way, reading voraciously in order to get away from an intolerable situation at school.) A Cherryh-style hero just wouldn't cut it -- not heroic enough, too introspective and emotional, and prone to screw things up royally. Why would you imagine yourself in the place of someone with the same failings as yourself?

Of course, the flip side of this is that it's good to read about flawed, emotional men who survive against the odds and even achieve their goals once in a while -- epsecially if you're pretty flawed and emotional yourself.

- nancy

PS: Curiously enough, many of Cherryh's *female* characters fit this "heroic" stereotype much better than her *male* characters do. Any thoughts on this?

view full message

>Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 12:14:35 -0800
>From: rcrowley@zso.dec.com (Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley)
>Subject: cherryhlist

(...)

When I read Lesley's original post, I immediately thought of all the arguments I've heard and read on the subject of Heinlein's characters (especially women), described variously: sometimes he's accused of all his characters being "alike", the "same person, at different stages of life", and the women are often described as "unrealistic". Yet I have no difficulty telling Jubal Harshaw and Lazarus Long apart, and Maureen and Hazel and Sharpie are all women I both identify with, and I can see uncanny resemblances between them and a few of my friends (pity it's not more!). I think what happens with Cherryh is similar: the style, the authorial stamp, the philosophical and psychological underpinnings of her novels are distinctly unique. If that turns someone "off", they are unable to see beyond it to the rich texture of humanity (uh, wrong word, don't know what to use instead, tho) that exists in that context. It all becomes the "same", because it is for them the sameness of everyone reflected in a funhouse mirror. Until you get used to looking in that mirror, you cannot tell a friend from a stranger, much less recognize that this stranger is someone you met in passing a year ago at a party.

>What is it about
>the other male characters that arouses irritation in some readers?

So I think that it isn't anything about the characters per se, but rather the style as a whole, the way that Cherryh portrays sentients of various species and worlds, that irritates some. And it just completely misses some people, too. I remember lending a copy of _Merchanter's Luck_ to my younger sister, and asking her later what she thought of it. All the suspense I got out of the book just escaped her; as far as she was concerned, it was an entertaining action-adventure.

>You could probably have a conversation with
>most of Cherryh's male characters -- something it's difficult to imagine
>with some other author's creations.

I agree completely. You might not be able to trust many of Cherryh's characters (male or female), but you could certainly have fascinating conversations with them.

				Rebecca

view full message

>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: Re: C. J. Cherryh List
>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 9:43:41 GMT

(...)

 
> >From: nancy ott <ott@ansoft.com>
> >Subject: cherryhlist - "Manly Men"
 
> PS: Curiously enough, many of Cherryh's *female* characters fit this
> "heroic" stereotype much better than her *male* characters do.  Any
> thoughts on this?

This is true, although they're also 'screw-ups and flakes' (wimps? naah -- Mallory et al are flakey, but not wimps). Most of them have their 'heroism' thrust upon them, and are just trying to make the best of it. Actually, I wonder if they are really fitting the 'hero' stereotype, or if they just seem to be more visible. If those characters were male, would their actions still seem so heroic? Do they seem more than they are (to the reader) simply because they are female, and therefore stand out from the usual SF protagonist? Would Mallory have been more 'acceptable' a character if she were a man? If Ari Emory 1 were male and abused a young female student, would those actions have been less shocking to the reader? I think that in Cherryh's writing, 'gender' as a category has been radically reconstructed, or even done away with altogether. 'Femininity' and 'masculinity' may no longer be meaningful categories for large numbers of people (although Stationers are depicted as being more conservative than Merchanters or military). If this is so, then in Cherryh's universe it seems that people in unthreatened situations may grow up to be nice, emotional, decent types whether they are female (in which case the reader may not notice) or male (in which case the reader might cry 'Wimp!'). In other situations, everyone has the potential to be a hard bastard (female -- 'eek! sociopath!', male -- 'normal hero-type').
However, whether the 'conventional hero' is male or female, in both cases Cherryh sidelines them. She is consistently more interested in the people with problems. the only exceptions (and I think, the only true 'heroes' Cherryh has) are Vanye and Morgaine, heroes in the epic, tragic tradition. Even here though, it is difficult to really get a sense of Morgaine's heroic qualities, as they are always presented to the readers through the filter of Vanye, who comes from a culture that venerates heroes. Morgaine almost certainly sees herself as a 'hard bastard' type, with occasional forays into decency (which she would undoubtably see as wimpish). Vanye can only see her as a hero, having no other cultural niche for her (apart from demon, but she's a heroic demon :-).
Again, azi and aliens have to be left out of this.

> >From: rcrowley@zso.dec.com (Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley)
 
[Why do people get irritated by Cherryh's male characters]

> So I think that it isn't anything about the characters per se, but
> rather the style as a whole, the way that Cherryh portrays sentients
> of various species and worlds, that irritates some.  And it just
> completely misses some people, too.

And how -- I was reading a book of feminist SF criticism (_In the Chinks of the World Machine_ by Sarah LeFanu, Women's Press 198?), looking vainly for something about Cherryh. The Hani were described as 'cuddly'. [barf] The author then went on to say 'at least the hani don't wear aprons over their spacesuits' (a paraphrase, but aprons were definitely mentioned). She made the Chanur series sound as woeful and stupid as one of the books she raved about actually is (_Star Riders_ *Never* read this book!).

				Lesley

view full message

>From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin@maths.tcd.ie>
>Subject: CherryhList: The Plan of Chanur
>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 17:22:16 GMT

(...)

>From: rcrowley@zso.dec.com (Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley)
> When I read Lesley's original post, I immediately thought of all the
> arguments I've heard and read on the subject of Heinlein's characters

Heinlein has characters? I never noticed. (Sorry, couldn't resist) I've met people who rave about Heinlein and I just don't understand how they can. But then I rave on about Cherryh to people who look at me like I have three heads. Still, I find it uncomfortable drawing paralells between the two... ;-)

(...)

view full message

>Date: Fri, 4 Dec 92 10:40:44 -0800
>From: seth@cie.uoregon.edu (Seth Scott)
>Subject: aliens and gender roles

This discussion of gender roles has been very interesting so far, but let me raise a question: why _should_ azi and aliens be left out of the discussion? I don't know what an azi is, but I think that Cherryh's hani characters are worthy of consideration in this matter.

People tend to discount the alien characters on the assumption that since they aren't human, they don't have enough to do with the human experience; at least, the assumption seems to be that they weren't _intended_ as commentaries on the human condition. Much to the contrary, I believe that Cherryh was exploring some important human qualities in her depiction of her hani; unlike the other races in the _Chanur_ series, the hani come across as very distinctly close to human thought, motivation, and emotion, and I absolutely refuse to believe that Cherryh would pass up the opportunity to comment on gender by positing a race in which the _men_ are thought to be the 'weaker sex' (ummm, well, in a matter of speaking!).

How would any of the hani narrative have any connection to us, as readers, if the narrator didn't have well-defined human qualities? If there weren't so many basic physical and hormonal differences (the hunter-instinct stuff) between Pyanfar and us, would it be very difficult to take Pyanfar as a middle- aged, iron-nerved and desperately crafty Fleet captain? I haven't read any of the books about the Fleet yet, and I realize that the hani social system has its marked differences, but I'll bet that it isn't much of a stretch.

So, let's drop the alien disclaimers, kkkkkkt?

		Seth

view full message

>From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin>
>Subject: CherryhList: gender and role
>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 8:17:35 GMT

> >From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
> I think that in
> Cherryh's writing, 'gender' as a category has been radically reconstructed,
> or even done away with altogether. 'Femininity' and 'masculinity' may no
> longer be meaningful categories for large numbers of people (although
> Stationers are depicted as being more conservative than Merchanters or
> military).

I agree wholeheartedly. But why then is there this dissatisfaction amongst the feminist critical community with Cherryh? _In the Chinks of the World Machine_ is exceptional in its criticisim of Cherryh in that it actually *mentions* her. Most don't.
One potential case for criticism is that her characters might be seen as the quasi-feminist attitude that "Women are the same as men because they can be just like men" (like violence, opression, ... macho women with guns), i.e. promoting women who enact male roles rather than promoting women in their own roles. Many of Cherryh's women exhibit male-positive roles (leadership, initiative, ...) but not than many female-positive roles (I can only think of one "mother" in her books).
I think the sort of stories that critical feminists like to see involve women struggling against opression and winning through based on their own possitive attributes without succumbing to using male techniques. Grand, this is fine where in a world like now where radical philosophy is a positive asset into making women aware they are not "the weker sex" and that can gain credibility by exhibiting their own positive traits than mimicing the male dominated world around them.
However, as Science Fiction is supposed to do, Cherryh takes her settings beyond the current. Her future does not fit in well with various common elements of feminist ideals. There are still widespread higherarchal, more or less male-prevelent power systems. (Which also makes her works more accessible to the general public) What they either fail or refuse to acknowledge is that, as Lesley says, "'gender' as a category has been radically reconstructed". They highlight the change to the women but not the change to the men. If you look at it objectively you might say there has been a coming together of paths. If you just glance through it you only notice the variances (e.g. Emory's child abuse) and gain a distorted view. I think this is very clever of Cherryh in that the books can be viewed at several different levels. Sadly the the critical feminists are already turned-off her books and don't give them this depth of consideration. [Perhaps because of her own reputed attitude toward them :-]

On a tangent to this I remember being rather revolted by one Cherryh Filk song ("Stationers and Merchenters" ?) about the merchant woman who marries the stationer in Downbelow Station. It portrayed her as the dutiful, love-struck wife following three paces behind her husband. Talk about being at odds with reality! I'll type in the lyrics if people want...

> She made the Chanur series sound as woeful and stupid as one of the books
> she raved about actually is (_Star Riders_ *Never* read this book!).

Well, if you like eternal 14 year olds with an attitude leaping from star to star on the backs of doggies I don't think you'll have any problem with it :-).

Jo

view full message

>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: Re: C. J. Cherryh List
>Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 9:20:47 GMT

> >From: seth@cie.uoregon.edu (Seth Scott)
> >Subject: aliens and gender roles
> 
> 
> This discussion of gender roles has been very interesting so far, but let me 
> raise a question:  why _should_ azi and aliens be left out of the discussion?

[Seth goes on to state examples of why aliens shouldn't be left out of the discussion of gender roles]
You are right, I think, in saying we shouldn't have left aliens out, as the aliens are obviously drawn on human analogies, but I still have reservations about including azi as relevant examples. (Azi are commercially produced humans, genetically engineered to have certain skill ranges. They are most prominent in _Downbelow Station_, _40 000 in Gehenna_, _Cyteen_, _Port Eternity_ and _Serpent's Reach_).
On one hand, it might seem that Azi could be relevant in the discussion of gender in Cherryh -- they are human after all, and are female or male. They have the potential to be capable of any action a non-azi human might take. The 'higher' types, the Alphas and Betas, would seem to be ideal for any discussion on gender roles. However, the azi don't seem to have gender as a category at all. It is truely meaningless for them. As their personalities and capabilities are programmed into them by tape, and as tape of any sort can be given to either sex, it seems meaningless for the azi to care whether they are keeping within any preconceived (unless by the tape designer :-) notions of gender. And if they do start to care about things other than the tape approved impulses, they are compelled by the failsafes to seek counselling and patchtape. An azi seems to be defined (by themselves, other azi and other humans) by their class (Alpha, Beta, etc) by their age (younger azi are deferential to older azi) and by their job (Security, Domestic, etc). Their training takes the place of socialisation into gender roles -- Catlin and Quentin, for example, both seem to have much the same personality, both being young Security azi.
Even those azi with the minimal tape, the Alphas, are seemingly untouched by notions of gender. This could perhaps be due to the rather precarious legal situation of azi in general. While supposedly protected by the law, there seem to be no legal sanctions about the physical, mental or sexual abuse of azi. No matter how tough, well trained or mentally stable an azi is, they are still at the mercy of their supervisor and/or their contract holder. Giraud implies that Justin's relationship with Grant is harmful, as azi have no protection against such emotions (in his defence all Justin comes up with is the fact that they were used to seeing such a relationship [Jordan Warrick and Paul], and they needed emotional comfort). In fact, in all the sexual relationships between citizens and azi, while some may have become consensual, I would doubt any were initiated by the azi. In such circumstances of more or less legalised abuse, it would obviously not be advantageous to have azi with a mindset that 'real men' wouldn't let this happen (or 'real women', for that matter). So I'd say that all notions of gender are left out of azi tape, and the azi are essentially 'clean slate humans' who can have anything their designers wish written on their surface.

(...)

				Lesley

view full message

>From: Lesley Grant <lgrant>
>Subject: cherryhlist
>Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 9:53:08 GMT

>From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin>
>Subject: CherryhList: gender and role

	)One potential case for criticism is that her characters might be
)seen as the quasi-feminist attitude that "Women are the same as men because
)they can be just like men" (like violence, opression, ... macho women with
)guns), i.e. promoting women who enact male roles rather than promoting women
)in their own roles. Many of Cherryh's women exhibit male-positive roles
)(leadership, initiative, ...) but not than many female-positive roles
)(I can only think of one "mother" in her books).

There are a few mothers: Pyanfar Chanur (depicted as never being there when the kids need her, the kids turn out bad), What-her-name Faha (Hilfy's mother, depicted as loyal to her husband and his clan), Olga Emory (seen in flashback, archetypal 'bad mother'), Jane Strassen (Ari 2's foster mother, depicted as someone stuggling with a job she's just not cut out for/ also Julia Strassen's mother, a previous 'job' she failed at), Pia (azi mother from _40 000_, depicted as bewildered), Elli of First Tower (azi descended, mothering comes after ruling her people). And there are a few more. Cherryh seems to indicate that children need their nurturing parent (who seems usually to be the mother, even though she ignores gender roles in other places) or they turn out bad (Kara Mahn par Chanur), or sociopathic (Ariane Emory), or neurotic (Julia Strassen). 'Mothering' appears to be "female-positive" even in the Union/Alliance/Compact (mothering can be done by men too -- until everything went bad, Jordan Warrick was doing fine with Justin and Grant, Denys Nye was very good with Ari 2, etc -- Kohan Chanur's dealing with the 'wimpy' science-minded cousin doesn't count, I think, as it was a case of benign negligence rather than a nurturing parent/guardian-child relationship).

)	i think the sort of stories that critical feminists like to see
)involve women struggling against opression and winning through based on
)their own possitive attributes without succumbing to using male techniques.
)Grand, this is fine where in a world like now where radical philosophy is 
)a positive asset into making women aware they are not "the weker sex"
)and that can gain credibility by exhibiting their own positive traits
)than mimicing the male dominated world around them.
)	However, as Science Fiction is supposed to do, Cherryh takes
)her settings beyond the current. Her future does not fit in well with
)various common elements of feminist ideals. There are still widespread
)higherarchal, more or less male-prevelent power systems. (Which also
)makes her works more accessible to the general public) What they either
)fail or refuse to acknowledge is that, as Lesley says, "'gender' as a 
)category has been radically reconstructed". They highlight the change
)to the women but not the change to the men. If you look at it objectively
)you might say there has been a coming together of paths.

This could well be the reason cherryh is ignored by feminist critics of science fiction (there are some who do mention her, but it is usually only a brief mention). Cherryh seems to take sexual equality for granted, not making any allusions to the past history of the matter. Yet oddly, as you say, men still seem to be more 'in power' on the political level. Only 2 of the Council of Nine on Cyteen are women (Emory and Lao), although a later councillor is also female. Only 1 Fleet captain is a woman (is this perhaps because the Fleet is still subconsciously influenced by outmoded Earth attitudes?). Socialised humans are still shown as preferring a man in politics. Non-socialised humans however, (and here come the azi, relevant at last) couldn't care less about the sex of their leaders. _40 000 in Gehenna_ shows us a variety of azi-based societies, and is perhaps the only book where Cherryh explicitly says anything about gender role. The Styx community is male-led, with a warrior aristocracy and subservient women, while the Towers are simply led by the first child of either sex, and the sexes are equal. These 2 societies, and the observations made about them by the alliance anthropologists serve to show how people with no cultural ideas of gender might develop (once again, the azi demonstrate the ultimate mallability of human gender).

			Lesley