Author Topic: EP119: Aliens Want Our Women  (Read 44981 times)

Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #75 on: September 06, 2007, 04:39:50 PM
In either case, what few women appear are shallow, frail, weak-minded and have huge breasts.

I'm curious...do they actually mention breast sizes?

I missed that.  I'll have to listen again more carefully. ;D



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #76 on: September 06, 2007, 04:47:24 PM
In either case, what few women appear are shallow, frail, weak-minded and have huge breasts.

I'm curious...do they actually mention breast sizes?

Well, yeah, actually.  I remember one woman being described as having a "well-filled" blouse and another was referred to as being "stacked" several times in a story.  A woman's breasts are described as "a miracle of pneumatic surgery."  Stuff like that.

So, yes, breast size is specifically referenced in many of "Argosy's" stories, among more general descriptions of how every single woman in the "classic" universe is stunningly gorgeous and liberally flirtatious.

Not many female scientists, though.  (Although if there is a female scientist, she is, of course, young, gorgeous and liberally flirtatious.)

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #77 on: September 06, 2007, 05:14:25 PM
Thanks for posting the specifics...on the one hand it's hilarious and on the other it's just plain sad.  I know it existed but it's certainly not something I ever had to live with (me who grew up with Ripley and Sarah Connor).  Things have certainly got better in the medium.  They're not perfect but certainly better. 


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #78 on: September 06, 2007, 06:24:22 PM
Thanks for posting the specifics...on the one hand it's hilarious and on the other it's just plain sad.  I know it existed but it's certainly not something I ever had to live with (me who grew up with Ripley and Sarah Connor).  Things have certainly got better in the medium.  They're not perfect but certainly better. 

Better in some ways and worse in others.  I'm not sure if there's been any real improvement or just a shifting from one type of bad to another.  (Is the hypersexual playgirl stereotype really better than the meek damsel-in-distress stereotype?)

At least modern fiction generally recognizes that a brain is an organ of the female anatomy, and that's a good thing.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2007, 06:32:49 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #79 on: September 06, 2007, 07:38:33 PM
I don't think that's the reality, although it might be the perceived stereotype.  4 of the 5 of the SF/F books I've read most recently portray women as much more complicated than that: Charlie Stross' Singularity Sky (Rachel, who's both smarter and tougher than all the men in the book), John Scalzi's Old Man's War (Jane Sagan who can easily kick the protagonist's ass), Elizabeth Bear's Hammered (Jenny Casey, the protagonist, who's pushing 50, has a faceful of scars, and a metal arm), and JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Cory Doctorow's Eastern Standard Tribe's is the fifth, and while the female with the biggest part in that book has an interesting history, she still just comes across as a manipulative bitch.  In the other 4, I don't think any of the women central to the story are portrayed as hyerpsexual.  Some of them have sex, sure.  But none of them are just about sex.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #80 on: September 06, 2007, 07:47:56 PM
Hmm...  I think you're right.

I see the stereotype I was referring to more in pop culture.  I don't think entertainment in general has made any advance, but SF/F literature of today is definitely more respectful of women than the SF of 50 years ago.

Yea for SF!

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #81 on: September 15, 2007, 03:50:57 PM
This showed up in my podcast feed today, and it made me think a bit of some of the early discussion on this thread:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/66559



Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #82 on: September 16, 2007, 08:32:04 PM
<much of my original post snipped, but I think the most relevant bits are left>
If I took it as an observational comedy about women and SF, I wouldn't find it funny.  But as a send-up of genre cliches it's a joy.
Of course, I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt to the author.  I usually prefer -- where I have a choice -- to read that way.
I'm wondering
 if the story
 had a racist focus
 would you have the same opinion?

The short answer is that yes, I think I would.  The best way to make stereotypes untenable for future use is to show how laughable they are.  Whether it's a sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever stereotype, the more people that can be converted to the side of "can't take it seriously", the smaller the audience for the genuine poison.



Pink Shift

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Reply #83 on: September 16, 2007, 11:05:07 PM
<much of my original post snipped, but I think the most relevant bits are left>
If I took it as an observational comedy about women and SF, I wouldn't find it funny.  But as a send-up of genre cliches it's a joy.
Of course, I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt to the author.  I usually prefer -- where I have a choice -- to read that way.
I'm wondering
 if the story
 had a racist focus
 would you have the same opinion?

The short answer is that yes, I think I would.  The best way to make stereotypes untenable for future use is to show how laughable they are.  Whether it's a sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever stereotype, the more people that can be converted to the side of "can't take it seriously", the smaller the audience for the genuine poison.

You may want to consider
 that not everyone has the same sense of humor as you.
I do not see the humor in this story you see.

Stereotypes are kept alive
 by those who use them.
Stop using them and
 people will forget them;
 eventually.

It is not the stereotype
 you want to highlight
 but the ignorance of the person
 who employs them.

The end does not
 justify the means.
Agree?

Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question.

I imagine that yes is the only living thing.

e. e. cummings


Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
Reply #84 on: September 17, 2007, 08:40:05 AM
In either case, what few women appear are shallow, frail, weak-minded and have huge breasts.

I'm curious...do they actually mention breast sizes?
In Heinlein's "Podkayne of Mars", Our Plucky Heroine makes a reference to her "chest" being so big in order to get as much oxygen from the thin atmosphere as possible. Not her "breast size" as such, but I don't think it was an accident that I (as a young teenage boy) made the association. Certainly, she was not portrayed as shallow, frail or weak-minded.

About Aliens Want Our Women:
I thought we were being steered to expect a Bluebeard ending. When it did not turn out that way, I went "huh?". Usually that's A Good Thing, but I'm not sure it's true for this story. I think it was because there were two twists endings, unrelated to each other. The business of the women being the catalysts for interstellar exploration was one; and the business of the movies being a major interplanetary trade commodity was the other, even though it  had little to do with everything else that went on before.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #85 on: September 17, 2007, 01:16:32 PM
In either case, what few women appear are shallow, frail, weak-minded and have huge breasts.

I'm curious...do they actually mention breast sizes?
In Heinlein's "Podkayne of Mars", Our Plucky Heroine makes a reference to her "chest" being so big in order to get as much oxygen from the thin atmosphere as possible. Not her "breast size" as such, but I don't think it was an accident that I (as a young teenage boy) made the association. Certainly, she was not portrayed as shallow, frail or weak-minded.


Well, Heinlein's in a class by himself when it comes to women.  In all the Heinlein I've read, he tends to write them as very pretty and also very smart.  If they don't start out that way, they usually end up that way.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #86 on: September 26, 2007, 11:24:31 PM
The best way to make stereotypes untenable for future use is to show how laughable they are.  Whether it's a sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever stereotype, the more people that can be converted to the side of "can't take it seriously", the smaller the audience for the genuine poison.
You may want to consider
 that not everyone has the same sense of humor as you.
I do not see the humor in this story you see.

True, and there is always a danger with parody that it can be taken seriously.  The ones that keep you guessing are sometimes funniest, but also prone to being celebrated by some of the intended targets.  (Mind you, it's not just the subtle ones that get some odd readings.  The CAP review of Team America: World Police laments the blasphemy in an "anti-left" film; didn't they notice that it was anti-everyone?  (Warning: site design may harm sensitive eyes.))

Quote
Stereotypes are kept alive
 by those who use them.
Stop using them and
 people will forget them;
 eventually.

As one author, the author of this story could have written something else, and one fewer story employing chick-lit stereotypes would exist.  Hundreds of others are still being written.  Net result: almost no change.  Or, as one author, she could write a story lampooning the stereotype that makes a number of readers uncomfortable or amused.  Either way, when reading future stories, proof-reading them, or writing them, those people might pause and think "This is starting to sound like Aliens Want Our Women -- that's not good."  Net result: slight reduction in the tolerance of the stereotype amongst writers, publishers and readers.

It can only do harm if the parody fuels the market for serious use of the stereotype.  It's possible but, in this case, unlikely.

Quote
It is not the stereotype
 you want to highlight
 but the ignorance of the person
 who employs them.

Sadly, this kind of patronizing portrayal of women is most often written by women, for consumption (in the tens of thousands of copies, good sales figures for the UK market) by women.  As a man, I'm comfortable ridiculing the stereotype but not claiming a superior understanding of women's feelings and actions than the authors.

In chick-lit's defence, few of the writers or readers probably think of it as anything other than lightweight fluff to while away a few holiday hours on the beach or plane.  Still, it's pretty depressing.  It reminds me of the most disparaging conclusion to a book review I've ever read: "If you only read one book this year, this is probably the book that you'll read."

Quote
The end does not
 justify the means.
Agree?

Depends on the end, depends on the means.



Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
Reply #87 on: September 27, 2007, 06:22:06 AM
Stereotypes are kept alive
 by those who use them.
Stop using them and
 people will forget them;
 eventually.

It is not the stereotype
 you want to highlight
 but the ignorance of the person
 who employs them.
You make it sound as if stereotypes are necessarily bad.
My dictionary defines it as "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing".
I'm not saying that there are many good stereotypes, but a few of them are useful shorthand for a number of character types. Take "cowboy", for example. It conjures up a whole bunch of associations, and most of them are good, depending on the context. I'm sure that most cowboys do not 100% fit the stereotype (or even 10%), but I don't see it as a harmful thing.

Okay, maybe the "cowboy" is more of an archetype, but the distinction is somewhat fuzzy.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #88 on: September 27, 2007, 07:09:14 AM
In my opinion, Planish, stereotypes always represent sloppy, lazy thinking. Even those that are ,onm the surface, positive, lead one to relate to the stereotypical image rather than the individual.

The first one that leaps to mind is the "noble savage" stereotype of native American peoples. If you see them as spiritual people living in harmony with nature you stop looking at individuals and start looking at a template.

Using your example of "cowboy", for instance, one would think of a strong, silent, rugged individualist. It ignores the fact that a cowboy may or may not be as emotionally complex and expressive as any other person. To say "cowboy" in a story and expect a reader to draw a whole set of conclusions is lazy writing. To hear it in real life and make a whole set of assumptions about an individual is lazy thinking which gives short shrift to the individual.

(just my $.02)

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #89 on: October 05, 2007, 08:17:32 PM
Anarkey?  Palimpsest?  Are you out there?

Hi.  I am, in fact, here.  I had put off listening to this piece, so I didn't have anything to say earlier. 

I think it was supposed to be funny.  I didn't laugh.  I didn't like how it was written, though possibly the tone was intentionally overdone; writing poorly on purpose is notoriously hard to pull off.  Someone way way way upthread had commented about it being hard to understand the protagonist because she's essentially a blank slate until the rocket shows up and I completely agree.  No one in this story was real or believable.  Again, that's a common setpiece for satire, but ehhh, it didn't do anything for me in this instance.  I hated the number of lines that began "All women did x"  or "All women did y".  Really?  No one was getting an apendectomy that day?  Not a single woman in the entire planet said, "Ehhh, aliens not so much for me"? 

I strongly prefer stories with realistic characters in them. 

However, because everything was so superficial and fake, I don't feel I have any kind of stake in the feminist/non-feminist discussion.  I have the same problem with protracted discussions of the problems of big media (too much violence, not enough non-white people, caricatured portrayals).  This stuff only bothers me if I care about the work or the medium.  Since I have ready access to my remote control and can stop watching crappy TV at ANY time...I can't generate any heat for these types of discussions.

OTOH, if I find I like your world and your characters and your setting and I'm invested, and then you make all your black people crazy, religious fanatics (*cough* BSG *cough*), then you'll see me riled because you ruined a perfectly good story with your stupid racism (or sexism, or whatever).

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


goatkeeper

  • Guest
Reply #90 on: October 05, 2007, 10:37:15 PM
Wow.  Seriously- I think I enjoy reading forum discussion on these stories nearly as much as I like hearing the stories themselves.  This is such a creative and brilliant community.  Viva le Escapepod forums!



robertmarkbram

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • The Blog for Rob
Reply #91 on: October 11, 2007, 01:01:25 PM
Get us into space travel faster by making all the women jealous. How cool is that!!

I thought this piece was hilarious, and I found the resolution surprisingly tricky. I listened to this with my step-daughter and at the point where she was on his ship having dinner, she said "He is going to eat her!" and I was prepared to bet money on that - I mean, where else did those eight wives go?

The most delicious part of this story was that we are being tricked into making for ourselves exactly what we hoped to obtain from the alien in the first place.

Leann Mabry's reading of this Ramona Louise Wheeler was perfect: I found myself enthralled by the sensual imagery of our protagonist being so positively affected by the alien in such a personal way.

Excellent story!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 08:04:27 PM by robertmarkbram »



multikay

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • just kay.
Reply #92 on: October 11, 2007, 08:35:36 PM
The funniest thing about this podcast is that the story reminded me of a German song from 1981: “Fred from Jupiter”. The planet next to the space rift and the golden appearance of this women’s alien are the basic plot outline of this 16 year old new wave monstrosity as well as this episode. Fascinating!

Witness the original at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5F8Noxgu4



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #93 on: September 30, 2010, 06:31:40 PM
Every female on the planet had just acquired a brand new agenda in life.[/i]

The story struck a wrong note from me right at the beginning with lines like this.  Really?  Every female on the planet is pursuing this alien man?  What about lesbians?  What about species-ists?  What about nuns?  What about Amish (who don't have TVs to hear all about the hot alien bachelor, and in any case would be morally opposed to riding in a spaceship)?  What about women in comas?  What about baby girls (it says every female, not every woman)?  What about females of other species, like dogs or birds or lemurs?

Even if that line were revised to say "all women", I still don't believe it.  When you're talking about a population group in the billions, there is almost nothing, beyond biological imperatives, that you can literally describe all of that group as doing.  "All women will die" will work, of course, because that's an inevitability, but "All women will choose to do x" won't.  Just as "All men" or "All Catholics" or "All Republicans" can never be an accurate statement.  Each of those groups is made up of individuals, and so saying that "all women" will pursue this man is clearly untrue.

When the narrator lies to me so blatantly and so early in the story, I have less connection to the rest, because I assume that it's all mixed in with liberal amounts of lies that are harder to detect than this obvious one.  Now, an unreliable narrator can be played very well if it's done in the right way, but this was not that way.  Am I objecting too much to the simple use of the word "all"?  Maybe, but when I'm reading a story, I want to immerse in it as much as I can to enjoy it.  To do that, I have to trust the narrator that he is describing his/her world accurately.  Start the story off with a lie, and that's ruined.

And if this had been part of a story that I found humorous, then exaggerated lines like that could have enhanced the humor.  I could see Douglas Adams using a line like that, for instance, and to good effect.  But nothing in this story tripped my funny bone in the slightest, so if that was the intent, it missed by a mile.

And I do find it a bit ridiculous on top of the over-generalizations, that the way that we'll get into space faster is by making the entire female population jealous--because apparently that's the only thing that'll motivate those darned females into being productive members of society!  I don't buy it. 



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #94 on: September 30, 2010, 06:57:36 PM
Incidentally, I recently picked up the book "A Science Fiction Argosy" edited by Damon Knight from the local library.  The book was published in 1972, and all the stories in it are more or less from "golden age" classic timeframe.  I've been frankly amazed at just how disparaging these stories are to women.

Paraphrase of what I said to my wife about it: All the characters are male unless 1.) there is a specific reason why the plot requires a female character or 2.) the author wanted "cheesecake."  In either case, what few women appear are shallow, frail, weak-minded and have huge breasts.  Male characters are charismatic and proactive while females are passive and reactionary.  I find this so annoying that it's hard for me to get any enjoyment from the stories.  (In fairness, I didn't read the whole "Argosy," maybe a third of it; it's very long.)

This story does strike me as being in that same spirit, but that isn't a redeeming quality, IMHO.

I haven't read that collection, but i did get an anthology collection of stories from F&SF, published back in 1956 (or so).  There was one amazingly good story in there titled "Gorilla Suit" I think.  And most of the rest was extremely disparaging to women.  The worst was by C.S. Lewis titled "Ministering Angels" in which the story begins at a Mars space station just as the first two women in space arrive.  They're members of a new organization which wishes to reduce the job stress of astronauts by providing women to provide entertainment in their down time, up to and including sex.  But the only two women who volunteered are i.  a prostitute who has become so overweight she has lost all of her clients.  ii.  a geriatric professor who never stops lecturing.  Both the women are portrayed as so annoying and disgusting that, while the women have cornered the protagonist in conversation, the rest of the crew hops into the only escape pod and leaves the rest behind--which in the story is clearly intended to be the fabled "fate worse than death".