Her Smoke Rose Up Forever

[coalescent]

I think I am jealous of anyone who was reading science fiction before 1976. [1]

I'm jealous because I wish I could have read the stories in Her Smoke Rose Up Forever without a legend leaning over my shoulder. It would have meant I could have read most of them twice: once before knowing that James Tiptree Jnr was Alice Sheldon, and once after. As

Comments

[communicator]

Glad you liked this collection, I think it's marvellous. So long since I've read it though - can you remind me what 'And I Awoke And Found Me' is about?

I think the point in 'Houston do you read' is that the women are assessing whether the men are capable of behaving non-destructively, and they end up concluding they aren't. But it isn't specified whether the women are right or wrong. My personal feeling is that the men are locked into destructive behaviour by the military culture that they are coming from and they can't break out of that stereotyped behaviour, even though their lives depend on it.

I also think the women's society is damaged by having only a small number of genotypes, which are endlessly repeated, and there is at least hope that the new DNA they get off the men might open up the society a bit.

[coalescent]

the women are assessing whether the men are capable of behaving non-destructively, and they end up concluding they aren't. But it isn't specified whether the women are right or wrong.

This would certainly explain how Dan and I could end up with such completely opposed readings. I can see how they could be wrong about men in general--if they cloned new men using those sperm, for instance--but I think about those three astronauts (and by extension what they stand for) they're fairly clearly right.

And I agree with your point about genetic diversity, although it's a small-population effect, not a one-gender effect specifically.

There's some discussion of 'And I Awoke' here.

[coalescent]

One-gender

Er, one sex. Obviously.

[immortalradical]

but I think about those three astronauts (and by extension what they stand for) they're fairly clearly right.

And therefore it's right to force them to their deaths? No. Unless, as I say, you hold the Greater Good, the unchanging well-being of your stilted society, as higher than the right of individuals of whatever persuasion to live unfettered.

[communicator]

What if there was a type of person that never did anything but try to kill and rape other human beings all the time? What would a society do with such people? Put them in secure hospitals I suppose (not being sarcastic, that's what would happen). But the women don't have secure facilities like that.

(Note - I don't think men really are like that (not does Tiptree) but that's the idea the women have to start with, and the men in the story accidentally confirm the mistaken idea in everything they say and do)

[immortalradical]

(Note - I don't think men really are like that (not does Tiptree) but that's the idea the women have to start with, and the men in the story accidentally confirm the mistaken idea in everything they say and do)Of course they're not actually like that - the question is based on a deliberately false premise, as you rightly point out is made plain by the story. But you're being too kind to the women - the men don't accidentally start acting like crazed nutters, but are fed drugs which strip away their better (civilised) selves. There's that point here about civilisation being paper-thin, but that's hardly restricted purely to men. We don't see the women on those drugs and so have no way to tell if they'd be just as bad, but by observing their ruthless will to power, their cool refusal not to counter any deviation from their precepts, we see that they probably are

[veggiesu]

the men don't accidentally start acting like crazed nutters, but are fed drugs which strip away their better (civilised) selves.

Absolutely. This is the big point for me - that the women deliberately set out to prove their own point, by whatever means necessary. Which makes me wonder why they (the women on Gloria specifically) were so intent on rescuing the men in the first place? They insist they can't just let them die, but then go out of their way to provoke behaviour that "justifies" murder.

There's that point here about civilisation being paper-thin, but that's hardly restricted purely to men. We don't see the women on those drugs and so have no way to tell if they'd be just as badA telling moment is Andy/Kay's reaction to the fight with Bud; "I felt it! I felt physical anger, I wanted to hit him. Woo-ee!". Clearly, the ability to feel aggression isn't lacking here; its absence is cultural, not biological. Given the right trigger, these people too can be aggressive. I wonder at the fate of Andy/Kay in the longer term,

[ext_3059]

Unless, as I say, you hold the Greater Good [...] as higher than the right of individuals of whatever persuasion to live unfettered.

Really badly phrased - we do hold the greater good to be more important than the right of all individuals to live absolutely unfettered; that's why we have prisons, restraining orders, ASBOs, community service and the rest of the Arsenal of Justice.

-- tom

Cheap gender identity treatments - buy discount hssruff online.

[immortalradical]

I notice to make your point you had to delete the part where I said 'the unchanging well-being of your stilted society'. I like to think that, unlike the one in Houston Houston, our own society protects itself from destructive tendencies whilst also not automatically rejecting new ideas, ways of living, and peoples. There's a difference between locking someone up who killed someone and refusing to countenance the presence of an etire 'type' of people in your society.

[ext_3059]

It was a parenthetical phrase, so it was fair game!

So what you really object to is that they consider the unchanging well-being of their stilted society to be the greater good? Okay, with you on that.

I am being unnecessarily pedantic here. Probably just getting carried away.

-- tom

[immortalradical]

I am being unnecessarily pedantic here.

Not you, Tom! I don't believe it.

[veggiesu]

but I think about those three astronauts (and by extension what they stand for) they're fairly clearly right.

Hmmm. I don't think so. The astronauts have been on board for nine months, and yet the women have to drug them to get them to behave destructively. Whilst the men may have the mindsets of sexist, patriarchal, militaristic dominators, the women still manage somehow to live peacefully with them in an isolated, self-contained (and space-limited) ship for nine months. And still they murder them as the only possible way to protect their peaceful and equitable society.

[veggiesu]

TBH, I found that the points made about men and women were equally stereotypical. For example, the nature of the men's views about women (they talk too much, they're passive, dependent, etc) are as demeaning to men as they are to women.