WFC 1989--Androgyny Panel
In some ways, this one really shows how things have changed in almost 20 years.
Androgyne--panelists, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jane Yolen, Susan Shwartz, Judith Tarr, Vonda McIntyre
As before, these notes are 19 years old, so I apologize for any misstatement or lacunae.
Ursula: "Androgyne"--is it myth, archetype, or cop out? We're not talking about sex, but gender, which is socially determined. Sex is biologically determined. There are more than two genders. The dominant gender co-opts the others until everyone becomes men. Only in SF has true equality been imagined.
Judith: There is also unisex, or sexual change. I wrote a story about a sex change tha was effective, got "Oh wow" reactions.
Susan: Tiresias was struck blind after saying that women enjoyed sex more than men did. But I have trouble discussing this topic because there is men's language, and women's language. The language of power.
Vonda: (anecdotes about reactions to her stories.) A character in Dreamsnake has no stated gender, and people have distinctive ideas about the gender of that character. She's amused by people's reactions to the gender of her characters. She also got hate mail for introducing a gay relationship into a novel.
Jane: three things go on in a novel. What the writer perceives (gender or whatever), what the reader perceives--and what the character perceives. Does a character have to be unsexed in order to be gender-non-specific?
Ursula: Let's take a look at the spectrum idea. (Describes how we are different genders at different times of the day. She then discussed the approach she'd taken used in Left Hand of Darkness.)
Susan: I have problems with the idea of post-feminism and its assumptions. To do a good and worthy thing now is to do a thing associated with men. To do a weak thing is to do that which is associated with women.
Jane: Left Hand of Darkness was a seminal infuence--
Vonda: Ovular.
Jane: What if people could slide between the sexes, the choice still was that the more feminine character is the one who goes home to raise the kids.
Vonda: I grew up on Norton and Heinlein, but I couldn't reread Heinlein after 1970.
Ursula: When we were young readers, we only had the guys (heroes) to identify with. She got used to it--and wrote as a "fake man" until "Eye of the Heron."
Judith: I wrote a story, then changed the pronoun to the other gender.
Susan: I allowed myself to be silenced as a writer from the ages of 16-27. (She gave the reasons, which were related to what Ursula said.) When she began to write, she bypassed that stage. [I did not write down which stage she bypassed, sorry.]
Jane: I can't stand the canonization of Emily Dickinson for being a good girl and putting her work away where it wouldn't bother anyone. She gets praised for being "good" and not for her poetry.
Ursula: We need a transition period to unlearn socialization--and it's as hard for men as it is for women. As a pacifist, I do not like to see women fight, but I want to see women lead society so that they can end war and find other options.
Then it was time for audience--and the panelists only called on women, which they pointed out at the very end.
***************************
During the seventies, I read a raft of stories in which the gender of the protagonist was hidden. In every single story in which the gender was not revealed, including to the character, the protag turned out to be better at everything than both boys and girls, and of course turned out to be a girl at the end. Every single one. The super-girls, freed of gender identification, not only could do everything both boys and girls could do, but chose overalls and boots to wear (oh, those doc martens), all sensible unisex clothes.
I remember when some women my age started wearing bras again . . . and then makeup . . . and then visited hair salons again, the crap they took from other women! How dare they pander to male tastes! They were betraying the sisterhood! Yet, yet, yet, wasn't the whole feminine social revolution about choice? What kind of choices was it if everyone had to wear overalls and Doc Martens, looking just as alike as the days of cashmere sweaters, white lipstick, and ratted hairdos?
Those endless consciousness raising sessions! I don't want to make fun of all these things, because I think sociological change comes through trying different ideas on just like clothes, and then talking them over as everyone readjusts and compromises. When I first began reading seriously about the French Revolution, I kept coming across references to the people being hyper-aware that they were making history--creating change--making life better. In some ways, they were, in other ways, they weren't, and of course so many are forgotten. Who remembers Olympe de Gouges now, alas? She was a butcher's daughter who dared to address the National Assembly--and who offered to defend the king, so he'd get a fair trial, since no one else would. She also wrote one of the Rights declarations, for women and slaves . . . well, having women free to do what men did--and seeing them do it--scared the men, and we know what happened as the Revolution undulated through its serpentine course.
Men and women, so alike, so different, their behaviors so often a mirror dance. Watching the patterns change is so fascinating, and funny, and heart-breaking. I see so much that still needs to change, but then there are the little things that the young now take for granted. Isn't that a measure of success? But at the same time, it's good to look back, gain perspective, and see how far we've come.
Androgyne--panelists, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jane Yolen, Susan Shwartz, Judith Tarr, Vonda McIntyre
As before, these notes are 19 years old, so I apologize for any misstatement or lacunae.
Ursula: "Androgyne"--is it myth, archetype, or cop out? We're not talking about sex, but gender, which is socially determined. Sex is biologically determined. There are more than two genders. The dominant gender co-opts the others until everyone becomes men. Only in SF has true equality been imagined.
Judith: There is also unisex, or sexual change. I wrote a story about a sex change tha was effective, got "Oh wow" reactions.
Susan: Tiresias was struck blind after saying that women enjoyed sex more than men did. But I have trouble discussing this topic because there is men's language, and women's language. The language of power.
Vonda: (anecdotes about reactions to her stories.) A character in Dreamsnake has no stated gender, and people have distinctive ideas about the gender of that character. She's amused by people's reactions to the gender of her characters. She also got hate mail for introducing a gay relationship into a novel.
Jane: three things go on in a novel. What the writer perceives (gender or whatever), what the reader perceives--and what the character perceives. Does a character have to be unsexed in order to be gender-non-specific?
Ursula: Let's take a look at the spectrum idea. (Describes how we are different genders at different times of the day. She then discussed the approach she'd taken used in Left Hand of Darkness.)
Susan: I have problems with the idea of post-feminism and its assumptions. To do a good and worthy thing now is to do a thing associated with men. To do a weak thing is to do that which is associated with women.
Jane: Left Hand of Darkness was a seminal infuence--
Vonda: Ovular.
Jane: What if people could slide between the sexes, the choice still was that the more feminine character is the one who goes home to raise the kids.
Vonda: I grew up on Norton and Heinlein, but I couldn't reread Heinlein after 1970.
Ursula: When we were young readers, we only had the guys (heroes) to identify with. She got used to it--and wrote as a "fake man" until "Eye of the Heron."
Judith: I wrote a story, then changed the pronoun to the other gender.
Susan: I allowed myself to be silenced as a writer from the ages of 16-27. (She gave the reasons, which were related to what Ursula said.) When she began to write, she bypassed that stage. [I did not write down which stage she bypassed, sorry.]
Jane: I can't stand the canonization of Emily Dickinson for being a good girl and putting her work away where it wouldn't bother anyone. She gets praised for being "good" and not for her poetry.
Ursula: We need a transition period to unlearn socialization--and it's as hard for men as it is for women. As a pacifist, I do not like to see women fight, but I want to see women lead society so that they can end war and find other options.
Then it was time for audience--and the panelists only called on women, which they pointed out at the very end.
***************************
During the seventies, I read a raft of stories in which the gender of the protagonist was hidden. In every single story in which the gender was not revealed, including to the character, the protag turned out to be better at everything than both boys and girls, and of course turned out to be a girl at the end. Every single one. The super-girls, freed of gender identification, not only could do everything both boys and girls could do, but chose overalls and boots to wear (oh, those doc martens), all sensible unisex clothes.
I remember when some women my age started wearing bras again . . . and then makeup . . . and then visited hair salons again, the crap they took from other women! How dare they pander to male tastes! They were betraying the sisterhood! Yet, yet, yet, wasn't the whole feminine social revolution about choice? What kind of choices was it if everyone had to wear overalls and Doc Martens, looking just as alike as the days of cashmere sweaters, white lipstick, and ratted hairdos?
Those endless consciousness raising sessions! I don't want to make fun of all these things, because I think sociological change comes through trying different ideas on just like clothes, and then talking them over as everyone readjusts and compromises. When I first began reading seriously about the French Revolution, I kept coming across references to the people being hyper-aware that they were making history--creating change--making life better. In some ways, they were, in other ways, they weren't, and of course so many are forgotten. Who remembers Olympe de Gouges now, alas? She was a butcher's daughter who dared to address the National Assembly--and who offered to defend the king, so he'd get a fair trial, since no one else would. She also wrote one of the Rights declarations, for women and slaves . . . well, having women free to do what men did--and seeing them do it--scared the men, and we know what happened as the Revolution undulated through its serpentine course.
Men and women, so alike, so different, their behaviors so often a mirror dance. Watching the patterns change is so fascinating, and funny, and heart-breaking. I see so much that still needs to change, but then there are the little things that the young now take for granted. Isn't that a measure of success? But at the same time, it's good to look back, gain perspective, and see how far we've come.