(no subject)

[jinian]

Why haven't I seen this before? L. Timmel Duchamp wrote a very interesting critique of A Civil Campaign ages ago. Lots of other good stuff at her site, too.

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

Following up to my own post, now that I'm home with my books. The quote that I was remembering from Cordelia isn't in "Civil Campaign", it's in "Memory". From the paperback edition, p. 364:

Countess Vorkosigan smiled very dryly. "Come, ladies. The gentlemen need to go talk."
"But I want to know what's going on!" protested Laisa.
"We can get it later. I'll explain the system to you. It's really stupid, but it can be made to work. Which, come to think of it, could alsosum up a great many other Vor customs."

You have to be amazingly unfamiliar with the source material to think that Cordelia views the Vor system as appropriate. She doesn't fight it by digging in her heels and protesting every sexist nuance she encounters; she instead tries to make subtle changes that will be deeply felt throughout a society, such as making sure that the Emperor gets an education that differs from the hidebound traditions of his predecessors, or making sure that backcountry areas get education and health care.

There are those who might argue that approach isn't "feminist", but I think it fits into some of the finest traditions of the feminist movement.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

I think you're putting words in Duchamp's mouth a bit. She's definitely more into open organization and resistance than I think would be appropriate for Barrayar, so I'm with you there, but where did she say Cordelia approved of entrenched sexism? I think it's prefectly true to say that "Cordelia's and Alys's behind-the-scenes machinations also serve to underscore that women can operate only with the permission of the males who are fronting them."

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

From Section 2 of the Duchamp essay:

It is my sense that two things are going on with this suggestion that power and weakness are simply illusions. First, the story is a comedy; comedy (http://ltimmel.home.mindspring.com/campaign6.html) is generally conservative, since it not only ends with the arrangement of marriage(s), but asserts the fitness of the prevailing political status quo. And second, the feminism characteristic of Bujold's series is something I would describe as an individualized, private-sphere feminism, such that it is "feminist" to regard women as in charge of and responsible for their own fate and structural inequalities of gender as of relatively negligible importance.

I was referring more to Duchamp's assessment of Bujold's series, although I didn't phrase it very clearly.

Also from section 2:

A number of readers who I know love this book read straight point to Ekaterin's heroism as proof that she does have public sphere credibility. But it is exactly the way Ekaterin's heroism is treated-- and Miles' having very privately given her a pretty pendant on a necklace in lieu of an official medal honoring her service to the Emperor-- that convinces me that "feminism," in Bujold's world, must always be restricted to the inside of a woman's head and occasional private exchanges of support between women.

About your last point, I think it would be more accurate to say that "Cordelia and Alys could not operate in direct opposition to the males fronting them; however, their actions are not overseen by those males, nor are the males often aware of the extent or nature of their activities." It's got an entirely different flavor to it than Duchamp's quote; after all, isn't that the whole point of working behind-the-scenes?

Working "behind-the-scenes" can sometimes be just as effective as being an "in-your-face" activist, and sometimes even more so. (The reverse sometimes holds true, also.) It's been my experience, though, that the "in-your-face" sort tend to look down on those who prefer other methods, and I get that sense fairly strongly from Duchamp's essay.