From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #36 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/36 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7 Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7 [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers Re:[B7L] African Explorers Re:[B7L] Responding to the Message [B7L] Re: Nuisance Re: [B7L] Kids Nowadays.... [B7L] Ref Power [B7L] HORIZON NEWSFLASH: PAUL DARROW ON RADIO Re: [B7L] Ref Power Re: [B7L] Social engineering [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) Re: [B7L] Power - on topic Re: [B7L] Power - on topic Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Re: [B7L] This will be fun-- Blake's 7 and Discworld! Re: [B7L] sloganeering [B7L] Re: Motorhead Re: [B7L] African Explorers [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC... [B7L] Pages Bar Re: [B7L] Power - on topic [B7L] Brainchildren RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:01:51 EST From: SupeStud00@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7 Message-ID: <2477081d.36a41fcf@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/18/99 9:00:01 PM EST, Richard.Watts@cl.cam.ac.uk writes: << >In a message dated 1/17/99 1:01:24 PM EST, Richard.Watts@cl.cam.ac.uk writes: > [snip] ><< I'm still not sure the Federation would get away with it though - > historically, tamper with practically anything else, and you'll get > little resistance. Tamper with someone's family, and they'll happily > charge a combat-ready mechanized infantry division armed only with a > small fruit knife.>> > >They did get away with drugging entire populations. << `practically anything'. Modern Governments get away with drugging entire populations (Florine, Chlorine, vitamin additives in bread).>> I guess I should have qualified that by saying drugging entire populations with a devious intent....:-) [snip] > << Anyway, if the Federation has eliminated all dysfunctional families, > how do you explain practically all the characters in B7 ? > > >Good question. They were all crminals. Perhaps there are some forms of >genetic tampering that the Federation hasn't perfected? << You can say that again :-)). Recall, for example, that Blake's alleged crime in The Way Back wasn't considered sufficiently out of the ordinary for there to be a major outcry about it.>> Agreed....wasn't his crime child molestation? In my arguement, I guess we'd have to assume that the Federation hasn't found a solution to this defect....and so they simply ship them off planet.....in Blake's case it was all political anyway. [snip] >We only saw the Federation through the crew's eyes. We don't really know if >there was civil unrest among the general population. It could go either way. << True. Again, I'd've expected Blake to have enthused about it rather more if there had been (and for Sarkoff to have been more militant). I think we may have to agree to differ, since I can't think of any rational reason why you should agree with me :-(.>> No problemo. >Thanks for the discussion and for not resdorting to name calling. > You're welcome :-). Thanks for the response :-). No problemo. > What did >you think of my analysis of "Power"? << I more or less agree with Louise, though I think Avon probably did get rather more satisfaction from shooting Pella than he would from shooting (eg.) one of the Homiks (sp?). I think its a male female thing all the way....the statement being made that men act violently toward women who don't conform to their ideas or who are too aggressive. I certainly disagree with the idea of violence towards women (I'm a lover not a fighter) but the implication was there.....one of the times I felt a little uncomfortable with B7. << Then again, this may well have been simply because Pella presented an intellectual challenge, which Avon was rather proud to have seen off, rather than a purely physical one which he never seemed to have much time for (hence, presumably, his attraction to Servalan).>> Possibly.....in any case she is still painted as aggressive and Avon responds...... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:11:22 EST From: SupeStud00@aol.com To: pussnboots@geocities.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7 Message-ID: <296625ab.36a4220a@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/19/99 0:44:16 AM EST, pussnboots@geocities.com writes: << The Federation would induce a testosterone blocking agent into men (not needed for women who already have extremely low levels of this hormone, explaining why men brawl, box and war while women don't) to curb violent and war like tendencies. Only fighters being bred (and then carefully conditioned and controlled for obedience, like Parr) for the military would be allowed to develop any.>> Good point, i hadn't thought of that.....I think though, that it might be in the Federation's best interest to have more aggressive males, to protect the home and family more effectively and strengthen the entire idea of family (the original goal.) Just having strong males in the military would not do it. << Now: best of all: this explains the total lack of male interest in sex on the Liberator and Scorpio! It explains poor Jenna and Cally, quietly lusting after Blake and Avon - who remain: oblivious *sigh* Vila, of course, who has a healthy sex drive, obviously gets his testosterone on the black market. oh! so *that's* what's in the soma he's always guzzling! It explains Dayna having to tell Tarrant: "C'mon kiss me! I can't be all that repulsive!" It explains Soolin not having to shoot the boy. >> I just chalked it up to the males in the crew being blind and stupid when it came to women. how could you live on the same ship with jenna and not feel something!!!! Or room with Soolin on a small base with no naughty thoughts. Men will be men, and the men in B7 fell short in this area. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:59:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Coleman To: B7 Subject: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've had a wee ponder about the status of women in the Federation, particularly the military. We see female officers (Servalan, Kasabi, Arlen, Thania - or is it Tharnia, it's hard to tell with these English accents - and possibly Sula), and there's no indication that these are regarded as in any way inferior to their male colleagues. However, troopers are all male and mutoids are mostly female. I suggest that this is another aspect of the Federation class system. Officers are taken from the higher grades: there is an "officer class" of alphas (and maybe betas). In this class there is full sexual equality. This class also provides the scientists, artists, white-collar workers and so on. The lower grades are strongly sexually segregated, and confined to relatively menial tasks. Men are either labourers or squaddies, and women are either kept barefoot and pregnant or converted into mutoids. Perhaps the proportion of women who become mutoids is used by the Federation to control the population of the lower grades. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:33:39 +1000 From: "Taina Nieminen" To: "B7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-ID: <001401be439f$906287b0$6f6f6f6f@tenzil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain wrote: >The lower grades are strongly sexually segregated, and confined to >relatively menial tasks. Men are either labourers or squaddies, and women >are either kept barefoot and pregnant or converted into mutoids. Perhaps >the proportion of women who become mutoids is used by the Federation to >control the population of the lower grades. Lower class women could also be domestic servants, child care workers, sales assistants, data entry operators, fruit pickers, factory workers (Federation robotics technology does not seem to have been very good). Taina - ------------------------------ "What's 'friends,' Lyle?" "It's like a chemical reaction between people, Condo." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:10:38 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers Message-ID: <000401be43a9$e1591bc0$d11dac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: >Dayna hunting Sarrans is a great analogy to the colonists hunting tigers >in Africa. Just assumed it was their right. And how could the primitves >protest? Spears against elephant guns? No contest! They may have assumed the right to hunt _tigers_ in Africa, but they'd have been bloody lucky to find one! Not all the African tribes had spears. Many of them were armed with muskets acquired from the Arabs (they effectively acted as franchise holders in the slave and ivory trades). The 'gun' (ie the price of a firearm) was a standard unit of currency in some areas. But these primitive muzzle loaders were no match for the modern repeating rifles the explorers were armed with. Familiarity with modern weapons was also as important as owning them. The theory of the day held that: "Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not" Yet the Khalifa at Omdurman had Maxim guns, and electric mines, and the use of telegraph, but 10,000 Dervishes were still slaughtered for only 48 British and Egyptian casualties. (The British did the same thing to the Zulus at Ulundi, but it was nowhere near as stirring as Rorke's Drift or Islandlwhana so it's more or less been forgotten.) Now, relating this to B7 .... erm, maybe not. Sorry. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:56:35 -0000 From: "Julie Horner" To: Subject: Re:[B7L] African Explorers Message-ID: <01be43b3$86c09e90$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat said : >Dayna hunting Sarrans is a great analogy to the colonists hunting tigers >in Africa. Just assumed it was their right. And how could the primitves >protest? Spears against elephant guns? No contest! I don't think she actually "hunted" them did she? I mean in the sense that she tracked them down to kill them for sport. Hal Mellanby would never have tolerated that - even when they were trying to drive the attacking Sarrans away from the entrance hatch he insisted that they only use "stun". To stray away from this slightly. I don't think it is ever explained why the Mellanby's adopted Lauren. Do you suppose she was abandoned and they rescued her? Or perhaps Mellanby decided to take the little Sarran girl to raise alongside Dayna so that she would have some company - which is inexcusable and insufferably arrogant. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:23:39 -0000 From: "Julie Horner" To: Subject: Re:[B7L] Responding to the Message Message-ID: <01be43b7$4ec23860$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Supestud said: >You are correct in your assessment. I believe that the degadation of society >is rooted in the loss of the nuclear family. As far as selfish, I think men >and women who do not want children for purely reasons dealing with themselves, >are selfish. Not just women, couples. My understanding of a nuclear family is one which has both parents living together (and with their children). The fact that the Mother works outside the home does not make that a non-nuclear family. I am intrigued that you consider not wanting children to be selfish. Surely being selfish means favouring yourself above others therefore implying that somebody else will be worse off by your actions. I cannot see who would be worse off by a couple unsuited to raising children making the (very sensible) decision not to have them. It certainly wouldn't be the prospective children. Do you mean society would suffer? Again I don't see this either. With over-population a major problem in many societies it could be considered socially responsible to choose not to have a family. Child-rearing is an essential and very valuable service to society - but so are many other activities for which a woman's skills or talents may fit her - mother or not. Society might be better served by a woman exploiting her most developed talents. There are many competent people who can provide basic child care while she is doing this. To get vaguely back to B7 here - I can't see the Federation being wasteful enough of talent to consign half its population to a purely "domestic" role. I think the most likely scenario would be that women in positions of some significance - e.g. scientists, would be actively discouraged or prevented from adopting a nurturing role - or at least would need to obtain special permission to start a family. Julie Horner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:45:20 +0000 (GMT) From: "U.M. Mccormack" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Nuisance Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would love this guy's Q-sort. I suspect splendid isolation, tho' I am regretful that I am not of the electrode variety of psychology. Is it possible to killfile on the digests? Una ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:04:50 EST From: AChevron@aol.com To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Kids Nowadays.... Message-ID: <3dda0788.36a49f12@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/18/99 4:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, pussnboots@geocities.com writes: << This is how I've been feeling this past year, watching the so-called holier than thou Religious Right mounting their witch hunt against Clinton. I look forward to Larry Flint's promised expose on how many of those holy rollers have illicit affairs in their backgrounds. >> Since we're getting off topic again, allow me a few statements here. The issue before the Senate at the moment is not that Clinton likes "getting some" while at work in the most prestigous home in history. It is because the man, instead of 'fessing up when called out on the issue, used and abused his authority to delay, obstruct, and mislead investigators. Seems I remember another President, who in covering up a "2nd rate burglary" that he had no knowledge of until after the fact, decided to resign rather than put the country through the turmoil of impeachment. In effect, of resigning for facing similar charges. Not to mention that a certain President pulled this trouble down on himself by a long-term pattern of semi-preditory behavior on women, something else that has not been addressed. Not to mention that the Pres lied to US, the American Public, in January of 98, put us through 8 months of depressing, sex- filled newscasts, only to admit in August he'd done something "improper". That infuriates me more than anything else. Oh, yes, I do loath the man, and dislike his politics, always have. But I'm not a Right-Wing Fundementalish, just a citizen depressed by the quality of our leadership. As for the trial, to heck with the polls, let the Senate do their Constitutional duty, and let them decide on the merits of the evidence they're presented with. Not that that will happen; partisanship and poll- watching aflict both parties. Deborah Rose ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:44:49 EST From: AChevron@aol.com To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Ref Power Message-ID: <3a66f2de.36a4a871@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit A few takes of my own on the subject. 1) While Ben Steed's attitudes on women colored this story for the worse, it did bring out some interesting points. 1st, we are told that the anscestors of the Hommicks and Seska decided to give up all technology to avoid the horrors of war. Apparantly this was not a unamomous decision, since the Seska have maintained a rather sophisticated technology. And even among the Hommicks, there appears to be "guardian" types who understand at least some of the technology. So the story is as much about technology as it is about sex. 2) Another horrifying aspcect is the destruction of the breeding vats 20 years before the arrival of our heroes. It is at this moment that both the Seska and Hommicks are doomed. the Hommicks, being too thick-skulled to keep all their offspring rather than the only the male ones, guerentee that they cannot survive. Indeed, the only question is how they managed to keep their population level up as much as they did. 3) We also see the failings of technology. The Seska apparently had no significant military technology available, and they placed all their reliance in the uncertain technology that augmented their latent telepathic/telekinetic powers. Avon showed how that could fail. Though his line men will always be stronger is nonsense. It's a line that applies only to physical strength. We see no evidence that it carries over into mental abilities as well. 4) We also find the cost of fanatisism. Pela is unable to bring herself to trust Avon, since he is a "Hommick." She pays the price for not being able to see that he and the Scorpio crew are indeed different. 5) There is the question of Dorian that is never answered. He provides the means to keep the Seska functional, but never sways the odds in the favor of one side or the other. One has to wonder what games he was up to with this 'captive' population. 6) In this episode we see Ben Steed's ideal of human relationships, with the subserviant woman. And I can even buy that there is some sense of liberation in being converted from Seska to "woman"; the Seska society was as sick as the Hommick one. And we see evidence that women are not quite as powerless as you might initially suppose. Still, it's an aberent society that throws us back to some of the worst cultures of history. And there's more than a shade of "Stockholm Syndrome" in whatsername's actions and attitudes, so we can't use that model as an example of a truly liberated woman. Enough rambling for now; I can't seem to spell worth a darn today. D. Rose ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:04:21 -0000 From: Robinson Paula To: "'Lysator List'" Cc: "'space-city@world.std.com'" Subject: [B7L] HORIZON NEWSFLASH: PAUL DARROW ON RADIO Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Two quick snippets of Horizon info for your delectation and delight: Paul Darrow has been interviewed for BBC Radio Essex (103.5 or 95.3FM or 765MW). If you are in range, or know someone who is, it will be broadcast on Wednesday 20th January, from about 4pm onwards - the stated expected time of broadcast is 4.10pm, but I would tune in a little bit early, just in case... Also, Peter Tuddenham and his wife Rosie are joining the Horizon group outing to see Paul in Guards Guards on Tuesday 2 February, in Brighton. Tickets are £8, and bookable through Diane Gies. Paula ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:54:38 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Ref Power Message-ID: <36A4B8CF.49BC@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 3) We also see the failings of technology. The Seska apparently had no significant military technology available, and they placed all their reliance in the uncertain technology that augmented their latent telepathic/telekinetic powers. Avon showed how that could fail. Though his line men will always be stronger is nonsense. It's a line that applies only to physical strength. We see no evidence that it carries over into mental abilities as well. But the gems converted _body mass_ to telekinetic strength, didn't they? Using the potential energy of the physical matter. What Avon said was short for, "On average, men have more body mass, so even your technology doesn't change men's superior strength." Obviously, however, this isn't true in all cases. I've known men small than me and I'm only average sized. My best friend is just short of 6 feet tall and probably could overpower a lot of men, based on mass only (she isn't aggressive, though). Likewise, and woman who is overweight would be more powerful. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:55:14 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Social engineering Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue 19 Jan, Helen Krummenacker wrote: > My impression is somewhere in between-- like modern society. Women can > rise without any sort of formal opposition to their ambition. However, > most women are content to 'fit in' and 'get along', as opposed to > competing. Like it was accepted that the Liberator was Blake's ship, > because he saved the other two first-boarders from the security device. > But Jenna could have said. "Excuse me, I was the one the ship bonded > with, and I'm the one who's had plenty of deep space experience. I'll > make the decisions, you Earth-lubbers." She didn't. Maybe it's her > idealism, wanting to join Blake, but don't we think there's a little > social assumption that the man leads? Of course, she might just have > decided she doesn't want Avon to targer _her_ as the person to take the > ship from. I think Blake emerged instantly as the leader on Liberator because he was already the leader before that. He was the one who organised the revolt on the London. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:11:00 PST From: "Stephen Date" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) Message-ID: <19990119191102.20142.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain I am never quite sure what to make of Steed's scripts, there seems to be an ambiguity there. I am unsure if this is intentional or due to stylistic ineptitude. 1/ Power - This could be seen as a tract demonstrating the futility of a war between the sexes. After all, Gunn Sar is slain by Dayna (with help from Kate and Pella), Nina takes over the tribe, thus undermining the ethic of macho male dominance. I don't think that Alison is correct in viewing it as a male sexual fantasy. (Puts on manly voice "I am Gunn Sar, Lord of the Homminks" Nope sorry, doesn't do a thing for me. Hopelessly compromised by the lack of running water and central heating and the overt presence of force majeure). I think Deborah is right in seeing Nina's "Once I was a Seska, now I am a woman" speech as an example of the Stockholm syndrome. I am unsure whether Steed saw it this way or whether he thought that to be truly fulfilled a woman should renounce telekinesis and independence and act as slave/quisling/brood unit to Mr Macho. One could similarly argue that Avon's "If you didn't want the answer you shouldn't have asked the question" line means that Pella was acting like Gunn Sar. At the end, might for her meant right. (I think various people have mentioned this. Unforunately I have been involved in an "Orbit" style purge of my in box since the weekend and have deleted virtually any message relating to gender roles. Sorry, no plaigiarism intended). The problem with this is Avon's behaviour to Pella halfway through the episode (i.e. when he tells her that men are biologically stronger than women and kisses her) isn't our old friend Avon the intelligent, he gratuitously alienates a potential ally. I think Blake would certainly have offered Pella a chance to leave Xenon or to join the team in exchange for the Dynanon crystal. I suspect Avon's sudden rush of testosterone to the head was merely a plot device. 2/ Harvest of Kairos - I don't know if Steed was on Jarvik's side (in which case he, or someone advocating his viewpoint should have won) or whether Jarvik was being set up to be brought down. His undoing is Avon's artificial Sopron. If Avon had hit him over the head with a rock, that would have been a defeat Jarvik would have appreciated. If Avon had bodged together something from Kairos to defeat him, it would have been vaguely boy-scoutish on Avon's behalf. But being defeated by an anal-retentive computer programmer and his synthetic rock is, I think, probably not how an advocate of the natural life would have chosen to go down. Steed, therefore, subverts his mcp argument. Intentionally ? 3/ Moloch - I can live with the likes of Vila or Arthur Daley (ie petty thieves and fences) being turned into loveable villains. When sadists like Doran suddenly become likeable types and the unemployed villains from Kalkos are seen as saving the Sardoans from the perils of social snobbery (note: we don't see any male Sardoans) I begin to wonder. I also wonder why an advanced life form like Moloch would a) encourage Grose and Lector's men to molest the local women and b) teleport over to the Liberator without wondering whether his mechanical bits would follow intact. In short, what was Steed trying to say ? Stephen. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:01:11 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Power - on topic Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon 18 Jan, Alison Page wrote: > It's a shame that the list got a bit drowned out lately because I think it > would be interesting to talk about 'Power'. One reason I'm interested is > because it seems to me that 'Power' is a bit of a male fantasy in the way > that romantic slash fiction is a female fantasy. (I'm not saying all men > like the episode, but then not all women like romantic slash fiction > either). Which reminds me . Has anyone told SupeStud that a surprisingly large number of female fans have a favourite fantasy of seeing their two favourite male characters having it off with one another... Male/male sex zines seem to outsell those with male/female sex... Avon/Blake, Avon/Tarrant, Avon/Vila, etc. Avon paired with a female character isn't unknown, but it's not nearly as common. > > My thoughts go like this. Romantic slash projects onto male characters > female characteristics like talking about their emotions and analysing > relationships. Some men don't like it for this reason, others think 'Oh, > well, let them get on with writing and reading it if it makes them happy'. > > It seems that 'Power' does a similar thing. It is a male fantasy that women > would be so horny that they would put up with living with that big ginger > oaf (whatever his name is) and getting beaten up and losing their > technology, just for the chance of having sex. I imagine a certain kind of > man seeing just this much desperation for sex in himself, and then sort of > projecting this desperation onto the women he desires. I'm more inclined to think of it in other terms. Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind. (BTW I don't care what Ben Steed intended; I interpret it in any way I like as long as it fits the facts of the episode) Slavery also come to mind. It also seems logical that some woman might choose to stay rather than abandon (male) children after the children were born. Actually, I'm trying to recall if the Seska ever had male children when at home. I suspect they were able to control the sex of their offspring as they had sperm banks and the like. > There is one aspect of 'Power' though that I really really hate. It just > pushes my most vulnerable button. That is when we find out that the men are > killing all the little girls as soon as they are born. I just can't bear > casual references to violence against children. And somehow the fact that > this killing is incorporated into a sexual fantasy just makes it seem so > unpleasant. I interpret it as a technological fantasy (though I doubt Steed intended it that way - however, the director had some input too and she was a woman. I often wonder if it was Mary Ridge who gave Gunnsar his sewing) > > I don't mind men fantasising that women would give up everything for sex. > But the thought of Ben Steed (or anyone else) fantasising that women would > allow their daughters to be killed, just for the chance of getting laid. > Yuck. It really makes the episode unwatchable for me. Even when I see it as a man's sexual fantasy, I don't see the woman as giving up their daughters for the chance to have sex. I see them as giving up their daughters under threat. I'm sure the men had some fairly nasty ideas what to do to mothers who didn't co-operate. If it wasn't fo that facet of their culture, I could find things to like about the Hommiks. There were decent individuals among them. Even raiding the Seska for women is understandable (though not necessarily forgivable), but any man who can take a baby from a women he presumably loves and kill it. Well. That sort of thing has happened historically, usually when there were severe pressures on population. Mohammed (a remarkably enlightened man for his time) banned the killing of female babies which was sometimes practised by the desert nomads. Female babies die in modern day China where families are limited to a child each. However, I see no evidence that the Hommiks had reason to limit their numbers. They weren't even smart enough to realise that when they had captured the last of the Seska, there would be a fifteen year gap during which no women would reach maturity. (Assumimg that they had enough brains to instantly cease female infanticide) Ben Steed hadn't really thought it through. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:51:49 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Power - on topic Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue 19 Jan, SupeStud00@aol.com wrote: > << I don't mind men fantasising that women would give up everything for sex. > But the thought of Ben Steed (or anyone else) fantasising that women would > allow their daughters to be killed, just for the chance of getting laid. > Yuck. It really makes the episode unwatchable for me. >> > > I saw them as allowing their daughters to be killed for the betterment of the > entire species....perhaps they knew there was no other option in dealing with > the men. I feel the women in this episode have the right > idea....subservience, etc, but the men are not acting responsibly in honoring > the sacrifice made by the women. As a result, they will fail. In order for > the idea to work, both sexes have to pull their weight. Codswallop! No daughters = no species. A rather fast route to extinction, especially as the supply of Seskas was running out. I actually see this episode as being about technology versus the primitive life style. The Seskas embodied the advanced lifestyle with hydroponics, etc. The Hommicks were the primitives. I saw Seskas who were captured and forced into subservience. I didn't see any willing 'sacrifice'. Like slaves through most of history, they were forced into acceptance of their position. The point I find interesting is that Nina was obviously about to take over the Hommicks at the end. She had the determination. She'd been a leader among the Seska and every woman there had been a Seska. She was GunnSar's widow and probably had some authority as a result of that. I often wonder how she managed. Judith PS. There's one or two articles relating to 'Power' on my web page in the essays section. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:08:09 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Message-ID: <19990119230809.63519@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 09:22:50AM -0000, Julie Horner wrote: > Harriet said: > > >Re invisible mothers, those discussing which crew member they'd like as > >parent seemed to restrict themselves to the men. But I'd pick Cally. > >Strong and gentle > > But would Cally have any experience of a "normal" family to draw on? > Wasn't she a clone? She mentions her sister but never her parents. Actually, she does mention her parents - in Harvest of Kairos! When Avon has her telepathically probe the Sopron, she says that she senses her father/her mother -- she is rather confused, because, as Avon points out, what she actually sensed was the Sopron's amplified reflection of herself. But it *is* evidence that she knew her parents. > I had assumed that Auron society was much more likely to have > communal child-rearing than even Earth under the Federation. Despite the evidence above, I agree: a society which makes multiple clones would be more likely to have communal child-rearing, just to cope with the numbers. But then, this is yet another example of how inconsistantly Auron was portrayed. Contradictory architecture, contradictory origins of telepathy, contradictory child-rearing practices... not to mention contradictory Cally herself, the warrior/nursemaid. (shrug) Actually, now that I think of it, is Cally really that contradictory? A warrior ought to be good at field medicine, yes? And we already know that she is passionately moral from the start. Just because she ceases to be suicidal after she joins up with Blake and his Merry Men, doesn't mean that she's automatically a wimp... Hmmm. Kathryn A. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:04:42 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: B7 Subject: Re: [B7L] This will be fun-- Blake's 7 and Discworld! Message-ID: In message <36A40360.690B@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker writes >I was thinking about this. Paul Darrow, or course, has played Avon and >Captain Vimes. But if Avon was a Discworld charaacter, I would see him >as one of the young theoretical wizards who work with dangerous, >reality-altering theories. Until he was cast as Vimes, I always saw him as being ideal to play the human version of Greebo. You know, exuding a greasy sort of sexuality that can be felt two rooms away... -- Julia Jones "One of the most basic rules for survival on any planet is never to upset someone wearing black leather" - Terry Pratchett, _The Last Continent_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:07:57 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] sloganeering Message-ID: In message <19990118214251.5913.qmail@hotmail.com>, Joanne MacQueen writes > Avona's right, you do have to be careful how you word things. >I didn't think of that. It should've been "", I suppose, as in >Avon's reaction to Vila agreeing to play speed chess. You're not >thinking about pipework again, are you? My excuse is that I've spent the last week editing the Vem Quest Round Robin into a zine. This is the round robin story where the Space City mob discovered that owing to an unusual space warp, vems were turning up on 20th century Earth, along with rather unusual cruise borchures, and we decided to pool our vems in order to go to Domo and buy Avon. I don't suppose I have to explain in detail to the Lyst members *why* we wanted to buy Avon :-> -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:20:33 +0100 From: Steve Rogerson To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Motorhead Message-ID: <36A4CCEF.8C7BD9B1@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joanne said: "Do you think any particular B7 character would have liked Motorhead?" Jenna - definitely a head banger! -- cheers Steve Rogerson Redemption 99: The Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ "Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care what you smell" Star Wars ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:45:04 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] African Explorers Message-ID: <19990120074504.15196@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 01:56:35PM -0000, Julie Horner wrote: > To stray away from this slightly. I don't think it is ever explained why > the Mellanby's adopted Lauren. Do you suppose she was abandoned > and they rescued her? Or perhaps Mellanby decided to take the > little Sarran girl to raise alongside Dayna so that she would have > some company - which is inexcusable and insufferably arrogant. I always assumed the former - it just doesn't seem like Mellanby to steal children. For one thing, it would have been impractical! I doubt that reduced-vision Hal would have been able to creep up on the Sarran village in the night and go about baby-stealing. Much more likely that she was abandoned, and brought up with Dayna. Thing is, from the way they never let Lauren forget that she's a Sarran, and the way that Chel says to Lauren "Welcome back to your people", that seems to indicate that she was older than a baby when Mellanby took her in. Of course, even if she had been a baby, Hal would have had to tell her she was adopted, since it is quite obvious that they are not physically related, skin colour and so on. ("Daddy, why don't I have brown skin like you and Dayna?") The other interesting thing is that Mellanby says, that whether he decides to leave the planet or not, it would be good for Dayna to "... get away from here. She should experience other worlds, other people." Why Dayna and not Lauren? Of course, you could argue externally -- that because the author knew that Lauren was going to be killed, he already thought of her as dead in his mind, and so left her out of it. But even arguing internally, maybe it isn't so bad, perhaps Hal was simply acknowledging the fact that Dayna was the more creative and adventurous of the two. Or, maybe he was a biased father who really only cared for his own flesh and blood. He certainly paid enough for her life. She's all he's got - the only child of he and his beloved wife. Yet he seems to be a mature parent, since he's basically willing to let her go without him. (shrug) -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:22:32 PST From: "Penny Dreadful" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC... Message-Id: <199901192122.NAA02260@f68.hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Am I the only one whose posts are being rejected by the Naughty List? GITHOG has slandered me, and now I am thwarted in my attempt to Defend My Honour! Perfidy! Calumny! Shenanigans! -- Penny "Uh-Oh, Now You Know My Scret Identity" Ante ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:33:04 +0100 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator , Space City Subject: [B7L] Pages Bar Message-ID: <36A4EBFD.733D6AEC@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is your weekly reminder that we are having a lysator and SC list drink or three at Pages Bar on Saturday 30 January. Saturday is Pages' sci fi night, so it's fitting. Anybody who is thinking of coming, drop me an email so we can keep a look out for you. Pages Bar is on Page Street, London SW1P. Nearest tubes are Pimlico and Westminster and railway stations Charing Cross, Victoria and Waterloo are not far away. The No 88 bus, which you can pick up near Piccadilly Circus, goes right past the door. The C10 bus also goes past the door and you can get that at Victoria. -- cheers Steve Rogerson Redemption 99: The Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ "Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care what you smell" Star Wars ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:29:59 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Power - on topic Message-ID: <8nHbvNAHtOp2EwtI@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message , Judith Proctor writes >Which reminds me . Has anyone told SupeStud that a surprisingly large >number of female fans have a favourite fantasy of seeing their two favourite >male characters having it off with one another... Male/male sex zines seem to >outsell those with male/female sex... Avon/Blake, Avon/Tarrant, Avon/Vila, etc. >Avon paired with a female character isn't unknown, but it's not nearly as >common. I did wonder, before I killfiled him two days in, whether SupeStud had quite realised the foolhardiness of telling a list that includes a bunch of A/B fans that he saw himself as ideal material to replace Avon in their fantasies. One of us might well have offered to write him into a story occupying our favourite place for Avon - under Blake... -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:07:51 PST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Brainchildren Message-ID: <19990119220752.26608.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Julie said: >My understanding of a nuclear family is one which has both parents >living together (and with their children). The fact that the Mother >works outside the home does not make that a non-nuclear family. That's most people's understanding of it. But must we encourage you-know-who to stay on his hobbyhorse? The Australian cartoonist, Michael Leunig, shares the Stepford Husband's views on family, but unlike him, Leunig doesn't have an entire beehive in his bonnet about it. >To get vaguely back to B7 here - I can't see the Federation being >wasteful enough of talent to consign half its population to a purely >"domestic" role. I think the most likely scenario would be that women >in positions of some significance - e.g. scientists, would be actively >discouraged or prevented from adopting a nurturing role - or at >least would need to obtain special permission to start a family. Therefore, it's a human resources question - how does one justify keeping, for example, someone like Dr Plaxton in a situation where research the Federation would be very, very, very keen to wrap its greedy collective fingers around would be constantly interrupted by the demands of the household? The stardrive was her "brainchild", and probably more important to her than flesh and blood, and certainly more important to the Federation than people -- why else would it develop bombs that wipe out people but leave buildings and other fixtures intact? The Federation is depicted as a very materialistic organisation. If present-day Western civilisation is any indication, it is more than likely that it would become more so rather than less. Regards Joanne (torts, torts, torts and more damn torts) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:07:03 -0000 From: Louise Rutter To: "'B7 Lysator'" Subject: RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7 Message-ID: <01BE43FD.30488B00@host5-171-255-80.btinternet.com> Me, then Pat P: > ><< To achieve their dream society, they not only have to > > ensure that all mothers stay at home with the kids, they have to ensure > > that poor nurturers don't breed at all >As birth control becomes more widely available, the poor nurturers (like >me) should have already bred themselves out of society by that time (I >have). This assumes poor nurturing instincts are genetic, which I see little evidence for, in my family at least. All 3 of us were brought up well by a good mother, but 2 of us have decided not to breed. My mother is very grateful for the grandchildren my sister chose give her! Your arguement also ignores outside influences on parenting. I am sure many heroin addicts _might_ have made good parents, had not their need for drugs over-ridden the child's needs. Shouldn't we be moving this to the spin list about now, BTW? Louise -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #36 *************************************