Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Science Fiction: Women Do It Better

Science Fiction: Women Do It Better

In a cafe in New Orleans a couple years ago, I overheard a couple in conversation. The girl was explaining the book she planned to write. For about thirty minutes I listened to this extraordinary idea for a narrative, a Jekyll and Hyde-inspired story dealing with female body insecurities that I’m not going to further explain because I really hope she’s still working on it, if not near publication.

“So that’s almost like science fiction,” her boyfriend said. “Not really,” she replied

No, it’s not just “like” it, her idea is science fiction. But for some reason the classification is avoided when the work is written by a woman. It’s speculative fiction, fantasy, or quirky McSweeny’s-style stories, but if a woman wrote it, it’s certainly not sci-fi.

Just look at the brilliant book Daughters of the North by Sarah Hall. I haven’t read anything better in years. The science fiction community has all but ignored it, giving only passing mention of its James Tiptree Jr award win.

This may seem like a superficial concern. Why should it matter whether something is part of a genre or not? But “science fiction” is known as the literature of ideas, intellectual rigor, and philosophic arguments. Science fiction indicates an imaginative literature: analytic, scientific — a creative work of scholarship rather than banal solipsism.

Even if a female author is labeled science fiction, another distinction is made: that she isn’t “hard science fiction.” The “hard science fiction” bar is raised when women want to write or film science fiction. Women tend to write a lot about biology, and more women study biology than other sciences. As Peggy at Biology and Science Fiction points out, “there aren’t that many gadgets that have come out of the biological sciences, at least as compared to the physical sciences” — and gadgety is representative of “hard science fiction.”

There was a panel about this at the WISCON, the women in science fiction con:

JB: Part of the reason the concept, the term is problematic is it’s used as a norm for “real science fiction” and however we define it, it has changed as more women enter the field. Fantastic, speculative, there’s other terms they call it when they don’t want to call it sf. Femspec. In early days of 50s and 60s sf, male authors would write about social issues and the social issues around tech but when women do it’s soft sf. Then we come to 70s and 80s when writing about biology was considered soft, because (the rhetoric is that) women are their biology in some way, women can therefore more easily be biochemical scientists… I expect the next thing to fall is going to be mathematics. Real, normative, actual, the only kind we should really care about, that counts, used in book reivews, not included in canon. This changing definition has a gender bias to it.

Margaret: Just like what has been called “art”. At various times pottery, woven stuff, wasn’t art, because it was women and people of color who were doing that. And very similar things done with gender and hard sf. As you’ve suggested, when men were doing very similar things with social issues, that was still “hard”.

There’s pressure on a woman to write “hard science fiction,” even if she doesn’t really want to — just to prove that she can.

People gave Sleater Kinney a lot of guff because they didn’t have a bass player; but no one ever said that meant they weren’t a rock band! Classification is always arbitrary. Had Joanna Russ befriended Donald Bartheleme in the 70s, instead of editors of Amazing, her work would be called metafiction, (or whatever.)

Going back to the idea that every subject can be science fiction, those of the gender that breed and bleed, have plenty of interesting science fiction concepts to bring to the table.

And they are definitely consuming science fiction. At least as many young girls have read the Handmaid’s Tale as young boys have read Ender’s Game — perhaps an equal number of boys and girls have read Ender’s Game. Females tend to read more fiction, after all.

Another two reasons I just don’t buy the idea that men are inherently more interested in science fiction than women: Small Wonder and Out of this World, about a girl-robot and time-shifter whose dad is an alien, respectively. Those two shows (and Punky Brewster about an orphan who was obsessed with astronauts) were my favorites and yours if happened to be a girl growing up in the 80s.

What makes these two television shows unique from other widely enjoyed tv sci-fi like Lost in Space or even BSG today, is both of the lead characters were girls. It might be the first time science fiction was made just for a mass young female audience. Silly as it seems now, the shows were no better or worse than any other 80s sitcoms.

Children watching these programs were engaged with philosophy of science fiction: what would it be like to stop time just by touching your fingertips together? (I’m sure I’m not the only one who practiced this in my bedroom when no one was looking.) Or if your friend is made of metal and wires, do you treat her just like everyone else?

Women love science fiction! We do! Probably more than you dudes! Nearly every art school girl has Ursula Le Guin’s books on her shelf. Women actually write most of the fanfic. Even at the basest, lowest low culture it is in there: a number of romantic comedies, (many starring Mel Gibson for some reason,) use science fiction furniture. And I learned, during a period of unemployment, that nearly every soap opera has a supernatural gimmick — clones, witches, even aliens. Instead of mocking it, we should embrace it, as the feminine counterpart to the shlocky science fiction made by the likes of The Rock and Sylvester Stallone in the 90s.

Some work by women that should be welcomed into the Science Fiction cannon: the writers Anna Kavan, Angela Carter, Shelley Jackson, Katharine Burdekin. In film: Lynne Littman, Kay Linaker, Caroline Thompson, and so many others. The music of Anne Clark. Art by Sara Sze and Patricia Piccinini. These are all just off the top of my head. I should probably make another post on this.

And let me praise Daughters of the North yet again. It’s magnificent. The Handmaid’s Tale comparisons were inevitable, but Atwood’s dystopia, while bleak and repressive, isn’t nearly as horrific as Hall’s vision. Hers is a world of hunger, suffering, torture, shit. It’s even better than Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Sarah Hall is a genius.

Images of sculptures by Sarah Sze

Previously:

Viewing 1 Comment

Andre Lieven 5 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Yawn... More "chicks roole, guys suck" misandry.
It's fine to celebrate actual female accomplishment in SF, but the demographics are what they ARE: More men th an women are interested in SF, and more men write SF, and more men write GOOD SF.
When women try to out-man men, such women lose in two ways: 1) Men are simply better at being men than any woman. 2) Women who try to out-man men cease to be the women that they ARE.
Strive for the best that you can be, man or woman, but telling lies about so called female "accomplishments" serves no one but willfully ignorant bigots.
As a man who has been to over 275 SF conventions, and who has worked and spoken at many of them, I can report that SF is still a majority male genre.
And, theres NOTHING wrong with that.

reply edit reblog flag

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

blog comments powered by Disqus

« My Vote: Gwen Ifill
Polar Cities »

A collection of interesting ideas curated by
Joanne McNeil. About ➚

Subscribe to RSS
Asides
- Giant knit rabbit on a hill in Italy by gelitin. Something similar from Florentijn Hofman in the Dushi show at Galerie West in The Hague.
- "Anonymity can be useful not just to cloak your identity or to try to fool people. It allows people who might pass something along to not be too caught up in the question of 'who’s behind this?'. Instead, the idea exists on its own terms, which makes people a little more inclined to actually press Forward on the email." - Bill Wasik in an interview with The Bygone Bureau.
- Kathryn Bigelow is finally getting her due (Steady Diet of Film, Slate, Salon, etc.) This month Harvard Film Archive has a retrospective of her work (see her in person July 2nd, introducing Hurt Locker.) In addition to Near Dark, Point Break, and Strange Days, among others, Bigeow also directed part of the prescient Scientology critique Wild Palms.
- This article on Ray Bradbury is getting a lot of attention. I found it needlessly mocking. It is hard to believe Brandbury talked as much at length about Bo Derek as reported, and if he did, maybe it was at the reporter's prompting. Another inexplicable reference that made it in the article was that Bradbury once watched the film “Pumping Iron.” Newsworthy! LA based Jennifer Steinhauer, who typically covers the govenator, seemed to have a lapse of judgement over what is worthy of inclusion. Bradbury, at 88, doesn't have much time left to impart his wisdom, and I'm sure most of us, California residents or otherwise, find his views on the communities and libraries far more interesting than the celebrity fluff that padded the article. Sure he sounds like an old crank, but he's an old crank who wrote Fahrenheit 451! Rather than fishing for goofy quotes, why not ask worthwhile followup questions about what he really thinks about higher education or the Internet? Here's a far better profile of Yinka Shonibare MBE including a clip from an upcoming Art 21 episode on the artist.
- Death of a Dystopian, my article on the life and work of J. G. Ballard is up on Reason. "His writing is obsessed with the territories where the organic meets the inorganic; it is absurdist, bleak, vivid, and awake to the psychological effects of media and manmade landscapes. In the words of the novelist Martin Amis, 'Ballard is quite unlike anyone else; indeed, he seems to address a different—a disused—part of the reader’s brain.'”
- More fake curators please. (Actually, the reason I picked the URL was because I hoped people would mistake it for a real place, as some physical location/organization/backing sponsorship grants a blogger immediate authority. From the start most of my google alerts were people's "to do" lists and sometimes when I say the title of this site in my head I think of it as "Tomorrow: Museum")
- "In April, I gave 13 UW graduate students a simple challenge: make an exhibit that gets strangers to talk to each other. 10 weeks, $300, and a whole lot of post-it notes later, they succeeded." - Nina Simon at Museum 2.0. More on bathroom wall annotation and going places alone.
- Pretty much the best thing about being sick is the opportunity to explore things you always figured you'd like but didn't have the hours sitting in one place to do so. For me this week it was The Wire (I know!) and the French Open. As for the email that piled up in the meantime -- I'm on it.
- The Tomorrow Museum is thrilled by its inclusion in The Morning News' 2009 EDDYS. And hugely flattered by the category "Best Source for Making Sense of It All"! It's a wonderful list of sites that are all worthy of space in your RSS reader.
- "Away We Go was directed by Sam Mendes during a post-production furlough from Revolutionary Road, and, viewed side-by-side, the films form a curious diptych—two portraits, separated by a half-century, of young couples trying to find their place in the world, one adapted from a writer, Richard Yates, who was among the most prescient of his generation, the other from a writer who ranks among the most precious of his." - Scott Foundas in Village Voice. The pairing results in something like a "Mumblecore movie made by David Lean." (via.) More from A. O. Scott, who ends his review "This movie does not like you." (to a "'oh no he di'nt' chorus of praise" all over the Internet, as Cinetrix puts it.) But pretty much everything IFC links to here is gold.
More asides»
Blogroll
Powered by WordPress, styled by Bogart 0.8.

Science Fiction: Women Do It Better

Add New Comment

Viewing 1 Comment

Add New Comment

Trackbacks

Asides

Blogroll

Categories

Sponsors

Good Books

Sponsor

Recent Posts