Talk:The Gate to Women's Country

Problems with the article
This page seems to have a few problems ... 1- Isn't the author Sheri S. Tepper? or is this another identical book by a different author? 2- THe book was published in 1988 but there is a category for 1993 ... I didn't want to make edits, cause it's all very confusing. --Talia 01:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Those were entirely my mistakes. I wrote the The Fifth Sacred Thing article and then cut-n-pasted its content to produce the GtWC article and you caught two things I failed to adjust in the operation. I've now fixed them; thanks for pointing them out! And please feel free to be bold and add anything you can to this article.


 * Atlant 11:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OH!!! Okay, glad you fixed it, I wasn't sure what the deal was so I didn't want to touch it and mess something up. --Talia 13:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is one more error to point out -- the play weaving through the story is "Iphigenia at Ilium" - see page 28 (of the 1993 edition). Nicely concise entry, and the links are great. --65.121.232.106 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I've now incorporated your point. If you happen by again, could you check, please?


 * Atlant 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoolers?
Do you think the links & categories constitute spoilers? Is there a standard spoiler warning you can put on a wikipedia entry? --Talia 16:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The "See also"s are, but it's pretty subtle; I doubt anyone would have their fun spoiled much by those. But the template exists if you disagree. I deliberately didn't add too much plot so that "See also"s aside, there wouldn't be any spoilers.


 * Atlant 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Homophobia in the novel
Shouldn't it there be a mention of the latent (and not so latent) homophobia present in the novel? I mean, I know some people who were really upset when they read (spoiler warning):

'Even in preconvulsion times it had been known that the so-called ¨gay syndrome¨ was caused by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy. The women doctors now identified the condition as ¨hormonal reproductive maladaptation¨ and corrected it before birth.'

In other words, gay people were sick or abnormal and better off cured. In such a future, no homosexuals exist, because there's no need for them to exist when they can be 'cured'. That's called homophobia, and I think there should be a mention of it somewhere in the article -I mean, if you're gonna mention feminism, you should mention this too, right? MS, 2 March 2006

Made a note about it in the article. I think it's clearly proved there's homophobia (and not just a 'hint', either). While it may not be a central topic of the novel, the authors' stand on the subject is clearly expressed, and as such it should be pointed out.

Changed the phrase: '....although it also depicts views that some consider homophobic'. I don't think such a phrase is valid. This novel isn't just 'considered' by some to be feminist. It simply is. And it also depicts homophobic views. It simply does. If someone wants to rechange it, please explain your reasons here first.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned series of comments was added by 62.14.195.190 (talk • contribs).


 * Whether something is "homophobic" or not is pretty much an opinion call, especially when the offense is as mild as what is described here. So in this case, only "some" (that would be you) consider it homophobic while others (that would be me) don't find anyone claiming to be afraid of homosexuals in the novel. Ergo, "some consider" in the article.


 * Atlant 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oookay, where do I say that it's mentioned in the novel that people are afraid of homosexuals? You made that up.


 * I completely disagree with you: I'm not talking of interpreting some obscure dialogue or subtext. I'm talking about something the author herself wrote (and that you have quoted up here).  She didn't have to put that in the novel, but she made a point of it.  Where is the room for interpretation here?  You think that saying homosexuality is a disease, that has a cure and that there's no need for homosexuals to exist if that's the case is not homophobic?


 * If that's the case, I guess we can start questioning if this novel is feminist or merely male-bashing too. And I don't think there's such a thing as a 'mild' offense, either.  Would you consider saying that being a woman was a disease, that it could be cured at will so that boys could be born instead, a 'mild' offense?


 * By the way, if you'd bothered to read the post through, you'd see it's both signed and dated. And of course I know wikipedia stores IP directions, so you can quit trying to play that anon game right now, if you please.


 * I'm rechanging the phrase again, at least until you answer me the questions I've posed. Tell me if you think there's room for interpretating what I quoted as homophobic and even deliberate (since it had no business in the plot at all).  It is what the author has written, not what 'some' consider it to be (and the 'some' business was started by you when you first changed the article, let me remind you).


 * MS, March 2 2006 62.14.195.190


 * You are not everyone, so "some" still applies (and yes, I inserted it. What does that have to with the price of tea of in China?). Stop trying to insert your personal Point of View into this artticle as if it were the only valid view.


 * Oookay, where do I say that it's mentioned in the novel that people are afraid of homosexuals?


 * Sorry, I was simply quoting (in short form) the first Wiki definition of homophobia at you. Meanwhile, you're using a definition that's expanded far beyond even the latter Wiki definitions of the term. The portion of the book that you cite does not suggest that in Women's Country there is fear of or any discrimination against already-born homosexuals, it simply suggests that the technology became available to allow parents to choose whether to bear heterosexual or homosexual children and they exercised that choice.


 * (1. They also made some rather-more-major modifications in humans, but you haven't commented on them.)


 * (2. I suspect homosexuals are treated rather differently in the primitive areas outside Women's Country.)


 * But if this were an actual choice, would you deny it to people, forcing them to bear homosexual and heterosexual children basically at random? Think carefully before you answer, because this bit of the novel is almost here.


 * Atlant 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you see, the portion of the book that I cite very clearly states that homosexuality _is_ a disease. There is no 'it simply suggests' a choice, as in, I choose blue eyes for my kid. It's to prevent a maladaptation.  That depicts an homophobic view. I'm not interpreting anything here, like yeah okay maybe outside Woman's Country homosexuals are treated differently.  That's interpretation and imagination.  I'm commenting on the views the author expressly states.


 * Now, I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. What do you mean, force people to bear homosexual and heterosexual children at random? It's what happens now.  If you're implying one should be chosen over the other because one is _better_ than the other....well, I guess that also depicts some views from you, after all.

MS, March 3 2006


 * Hey listen, I've changed the phrase again. Does it sound better to you now?  MS


 * I'm sorry, but no. You want to state (implicitly) that everyone accepts that this is homophobia and I am proof that this is not true.


 * By the way, can you provide me a page number (and maybe the total page count in your copy in case we have different editions)? I'll go re-read the section.


 * If you're implying one should be chosen over the other because one is _better_ than the other....well, I guess that also depicts some views from you, after all.


 * It doesn't much matter what you or I think. Along with a lot of other changes that we'll probably find unpleasant, the ability to select a heterosexual or a homosexual child is almost certainly coming; it isn't a question of "should", it's a question of "could". And when it can be done, it almost certainly will be done, along with sex selection, human cloning, and all that other fine stuff. That's why I challenged you to think about the social ramifications of this inevitable future.


 * Atlant 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. So you don't think saying homosexuality is a disease is homophobic. It's just a pat on the back to homosexuals, right?  What do you mean by 'I am proof that this is not true'? I'd like to know where you put the line about what's homophobic or not.....but that's neither here or now, I guess.

Let me put it another way, if the WHO and APA organisations say homosexuality is not a disease, and that it had been considered as such for a long time due to prejudiced attitudes (I can give you the links, but a google search would be just as effective), then a book that says homosexuality is a disease, no matter when it was first published, is depicting a prejudised attitute. Do you agree with that? Do you find a flaw in the logic somewhere? And another thing. Not thinking something is homophobic doesn't mean it isn't. I'm giving you my objective reasons about why saying homosexuality is a maladaptation is homophobic (www.apa.org). Can you give me objective reasons why saying that wouldn't be homophobic?

And I really don't agree with you when you say that it when people can choose, they will. Homosexuality is not a disease, not a maladaptation, not an illness. It's not something to cure or avoid. It's a way of life. People are happy being homosexuals. They are not happy when they are persecuted. But black people were also persecuted. If people could change their skin colour, would they? If they could choose to be male over female, would they? From social pressure, perhaps they would have done it decades ago. But now? No way. The trick is to change the inequalities, not to say one thing is inferior to the other, because that's just plain not true, and there you have the proof when black people or women are able to reach top positions, be happy, etc. It's the same thing.

My book has 315 pages, it's from the Bantam books edition, and I quoted from page 76.

For what it's worth, I like debating with you. :) I won't be changing the phrase in the article (for now), because it's kinda ridiculous for both of us to be changing it each time we log in, and I do think we kinda will be able to reach some consensus here about which kind of phrase would be better employed here. I still don't like yours, but I'm sure we can find something on which both of us agree.

Perhaps we could put the quote up there in the article (with a short introduction of why it is there -perhaps a title like 'Homosexual views on the novel', or something like that), and let people see for themselves. Without either saying 'some people consider' or 'the book states or depicts'. What do you think? The article is very short, we could start writing more about the book starting with that. :) MS 4 March 2006


 * Has anyone considered that the homophobic views expressed may be intended sarcastically? I'm not familiar with this particular book, so I might just be showing my ignorance, but having read many other Tepper stories I certainly wouldn't consider her a homophobic novelist (quite the opposite in fact!). Persecution of homosexuals is a major theme in her work, and homosexual characters are always treated sensitively, while the institutions oppressing them are corrupt or downright evil. I would tend to read any homophobic views in a Tepper book as just expressing the viewpoint of a particular character or group of characters, usually for satirical effect - definitely not the view of the author herself. Bottlegreen roses 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you're trying to point out, but no. I don't think it could be construed as sarcasm or irony or anything else with a double meaning.  The thing is, the book shouldn't even make a mention about homosexuals, and the only time it does is to say homosexuality is a disease (probably, and this is my opinion, so the reader will get the idea that all those women together in that country are not together in other ways).  There's no reflection, no comments from the characters that would lead you to think the author might mean something else entirely.  That's why it's perceived as a homophobic comment.  I've read several chapters of a later book by her, and it's true, she doesn't address the issue there, and I don't know about other books.  Doesn't change the fact she does in this book though.  Raystorm 22:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By the end of the book, Tepper makes clear that "Women's Country" is not what it seems and not without considerable moral darkness. The novel is not a "slam dunk" for the promotion of separatist feminism or homophobia. Did you get to the end of the book? I agree with Bottlegreen roses; I doubt that Tepper is homophobic, the section she wrote is to give you an understanding of how that society dealt with what *they* viewed as a problem.

Just because you did not construe it as irony, sarcasm or "double meaning" does not mean that the author is uncritically agreeing with the "fixing" of homosexuality. Not everyone couches their critiques in the language of Jonathan Swift.

According to you, an author is required to make reflection or comments by characters in order to prove that they, personally, do not have "politically incorrect" views. (How would Heinlein have managed it?) In fiction, the author's job is to tell you a story and introduce you to characters, not to tell you who they (the author) are.

In science fiction and fantasy, and other genre works, we also implicitly understand that this is NOT the same realistic world we live in, and that people in the novel may think/act/behave differently.

There are plenty of people who write about topics, people, and behavior that they do not morally agree with. If someone wrote from the point of view of a deranged killer, as some crime/mystery novelists do, does that mean they agree with the killer's morality? "American Psycho" was disgusting to me, but that doesn't mean I think Bret Easton Ellis wants to kill and mutilate women.

If someone writes a novel such as "Fatherland," regarding a civilization where Nazism, racism and torture has been made "normal", do you assume the novelist agrees with this? It seems as if you got to this part of the book, were offended by a single phrase, and that it colored everything else you read. Noirdame 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed completely the point. I wish you had read a bit more carefully what had been said above.  Obviously, an author is free to set a novel in whatever context he or she likes, and comment on it accordingly.  There's really no need to be so condescending as to explain what sci-fi is all about.  ;)


 * The reason for saying that this novel in particular depicts homophobic views is that those same views that are quoted up above somewhere were completely irrelevant to the plot. They weren't even relevant to a sub-plot.  The one and only time homosexuality is referred to in the novel, it is as a sickness.  That's a view that some would consider homophobic.  I'm not saying the author is homophobic (big difference), I'm saying the novel can be interpreted as homophobic.  To play with your analogy, if you were reading a book about a crime in Germany, and at some point (and kinda out of the blue), you read a few pages stating what a great influence the SS were for stability under Hitler, or how Goebbels had the right idea, or some such thing, _without coming from one of the characters, but as a description_, and later the subject isn't readressed, you'd say what the hell?  I've read tougher novels, such as Walk to the end of the world, and in no way I believe the author supports women domination as a normal status quo.  But the novel addresses it.  You gotta separate about a novel depicting homophobic views and an author being homophobic.  American Psycho deals with gore (I think, I haven't actually seen it, just seen the trailer).  That doesn't mean the person that wrote the script is a gore-maniac.  But the movie _is_ goric.


 * I really hope that clears what I meant to say, because I honestly thought this subject had exhausted itself a long time ago. Cheers!  Raystorm 23:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

couldn't the whole deal be dealt with by replacing "depicts views which some consider homophobic" with "depicts homosexuality as a genetic and hormonal disorder which has been eugenically removed from the population. Many readers view this as homophobic." benefits are: provides more information than the current iteration, doesn't require a judgement call (whether or not i think there's actually one to be made) by presenting the reader with the relevant plot point, and letting them decide whether they think it's homophobic or not. given the fairly straightforward and concise way that the passage pathologizes homosexuality, describing the single passage as "views" depicted in the book seems to be an inaccurate and obfuscating move. i also have to agree with many of the above posters, that the "which some consider" (or for that matter "which many consider") is weak wording which clouds the issue, when by wikipedia's own definition, "homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." is it really debatable whether breeding a segment of the population out of existence evidences an aversion to that segment of the population? (concerned queer who just got done reading the thing)


 * I think this is better, because "depicting views" is always weaselish in talking about authors and raises questions like the above (is it Tepper's view, or the views of her society, or what). --LQ 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. good. i changed it accordingly. we can always fight it out later -- (concerned queer, yet again) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.186.231 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Really like it. More accurate. Raystorm 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the bit on the end and changed "Many" to "Some". As it stood this appeared to me, having just arrived and without having read the interminable ramblings above, to suggest Tepper herself is homophobic. No-one familiar with Tepper would think for a minute that she is homophobic herself, as others have mentioned, many other of her books include gay and lesbian characters who are portrayed in a sympathetic manner; e.g. Faye Whittier in Gibbon's Decline And Fall - one of the six main characters, she happens to be a lesbian, this is not seen as negative at all (except inasmuch as she has her own advantages and disadvantages unique to her own lifestyle and approach to romantic relationships, just as the other five, straight protagonists also do), her sexuality is simply a side of her character. I'll agree this bit surprised me when I originally read it, but once you finish the book it is clear what it's doing there and where the idea comes from. It is clear to me that this is intended to be the views of the Women's Country society, more than likely based on the dominant views of "preconvulsion" society, taken as fact by Women's Country medics; consider the way it says "even in preconvulsion times, it had been known that the so-called "gay syndrome" was caused by aberrant hormone levels during pregnancy." This, along with various other hints, does sort of suggest that the preconvulsion society was/is/will be rather different to modern day attitudes. Plus, the focus of the paragraph is not on sexuality as much as aggression in a sexual context, culminating in a normally heterosexual man allegedly raping a boy. Given that (SPOILERS etc) the whole society is founded on and dedicated to secret, society-wide eugenics to eradicate aggression, this gives solid reasoning to the society's attempts to curtail homosexuality (I'm not agreeing with it, simply trying to lay out the logic behind it as I understand it). Furthermore, it seems entirely in keeping with Tepper to think of this as an ironic idea (i.e. the idea that in order to remove aggression from society, many other things inevitably get destroyed and misunderstood) and that ought not to be discounted. YourMessageHere 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality/Homophobia revisited
I have removed the rather lengthy paragraph discussing the portrayal of homosexuality in this book that was under "Major themes". There were no sources for any of the claims about what readers of the book thought about it how homosexuality was portrayed or what it all meant. I don't doubt that some readers have thought these things, but these opinions are not noteworthy. Barring some evidence of real controversy over this aspect of the novel, I don't see it as worth mentioning. Homosexuality/homophobia is certainly not a "major theme" of the book -- it's mentioned exactly once, in passing. Focusing on this minor subject while the plot section of the article is nothing more than a description of the novel's setting is non-productive. CKarnstein (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've readded part of the paragraph (not much, you were quite right, it was rather lenghy), and have provided sources that deal with the homophobia present in the novel and show it is worth mentioning in the article. Cheers Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph, as what was there misinterprets both Tepper and the one solid citation provided (Frankenstein's Daughter's).
 * 1) Frankenstein's Daughter's: The footnote discussing Tepper's novel comes at the end of the following sentence - "These novels thus identify and examine the homophobia that in our culture lies behind the collusion of science with heterosexual ideology - the fear that, if women are not "tied down" to childbearing and childrearing, all of us will turn to same-sex partners." This sentence is clearly lauditory of the novels in question, including Tepper. (Of course people are disturbed! They are supposed to be disturbed! Tepper doesn't write fluffy little novels full of cute creatures and spacemen! Geesh! Think Harlan Ellison in drag. No, wait, he got accused of being homophobic, too, didn't he? Double geesh. Sometimes my community drives me nuts.)
 * 2) Pearson: Seriously? First, let's use the article's correct title "After the (Homo)Sexual: A Queer Analysis of Anti-Sexuality in Sheri S. Tepper's The Gate to Women's Country", second, we can move on to the author's own statement that her article is a sub-cultural analysis, and that already eliminates the reference as being appropriate for analysis included in an encyclopedia entry. (If you read the full article, it isn't actually about Tepper, but about the author's reaction to reading Tepper.)

So we have one reasonably solid literary citation (I say reasonably because it isn't generally considered good practice to cite a footnote) that supports what so many have tried to explain previously, namely that Tepper is a highly nuanced author who is herself something of a provacateur and most certainly an activist (on the left, folks, not on the right, learn about your subject...)

She did deal with homosexuality and homophobia in the book; she looked at what happens to gay people in the presence of eugenics, namely annihilation. She most certainly does not present it in a good light! It is chilling. It should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryholz (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it be any more obvious feminism is a hate group! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.6.172 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chichoni cronache.jpg
Image:Chichoni cronache.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why link to the Starhawk book?
I noticed the See Also link to Starhawk's book, The Fifth Sacred Thing. Why? That book is not mentioned in this article in any way, and this book is not mentioned in the article for Starhawk's book. I do not think either book refers to the other, does it? There is no indication for why there is a link. Shouldn't there be some reason that the reader can understand by reading one article or the other? (I am putting a similar note on the Talk page for Starhawk's book.) Sylvia A (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I visited this article and I can't remember whether I or someone else added that link, but I'd argue that The Fifth Sacred Thing is a novel that is exploring precisely the same theme as The Gate to Women's Country. Both have a post-apocalyptic world that is 1) attempting to devise a new way of living that is both peaceful and sustainable and 2) facing external enemies in the form of Christian fundamentalists. TFST assumes quite a lot more magic than GtWC so it's farther off into the fantasy end of the spectrum than the speculative fiction end, but I definitely and routinely think of these two books together and first read them at just about the same time in my life.


 * I think anyone who enjoys GtWC will probably enjoy TFST so I think the link is justified.


 * Atlant (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"
Someone has come through an edited a bunch of "Citation Needed" tags into the article. I'm a little confused by that because for most or maybe even all of the places where the tag was inserted, the truth of the questioned statement is self-evident to anyone who has actually read the book.

If someone wants to cite specific chapters, feel free and that would be a nice improvement, but if nothing else is done, I'll probably eventually remove all of the "Citation Needed" tags.

Atlant (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)