
Sci-Fi Author Robert Heinlein Was Basically MacGyver - jelliclesfarm
https://www.wired.com/2019/02/geeks-guide-gregory-benford/
======
yawaramin
Wow, that's cool. MacGuyver is one of my childhood TV favourites and a classic
character. I love how he refuses to use guns. And Heinlein is one of my
favourite quotes:

> A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
> hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
> a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
> act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a
> computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
> Specialization is for insects.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man)

~~~
eesmith
Remember that Heinlein saw E. E. "Doc" Smith as a MacGuyver.

FWIW, I don't like the Wired piece. It's a second-hand description based on
the views of Gregory Benford. I don't think that the descriptions given -
building his own house with an unusual design, and being a good shot - are
sufficient to qualify as being a MacGuyver.

Certainly there's more to Heinlein than those, like working out orbital
mechanics on paper for part of a plot point.

But other than his SF writing, does his MacGuyver-ness really stand out from
other mid-20th century tinkerers?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Heinlein was fearless. His opinions and ideas would be ‘frowned upon’ in our
times.

On a diff note ..There has been some difficult concepts to swallow in his
books...but also so many that were mind blowing.

I love almost all of the Lazarus Long stories. The writing style and language
is a tad stilted now..I guess it’s because most were written prior 50s.
Remarkable mind!

~~~
eesmith
Your praise seems to me quite anodyne. He has plenty of ideas and opinions,
some of which were frowned upon both then and now, some of which were not.

As a simple example, he was in favor of public nudity, and thought that would
be the way of the future. (Eg, the idea that appropriate dress for dinner was
either "formal dress or formal skin.") Public nudity was a US subculture then
and now (and elsewhere; see Freikörperkultur (FKK) in Germany), and still
"frowned upon".

As a more difficult example, he advocated mass decentralization of the US so
that we could survive a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He seemed to be an
early form of prepper. From the low number of bomb shelters built, even in the
height of the crazy, it was a frowned upon view then, and now. (Dyson, in his
'Disturbing the Universe', also points out the destabilizing effect on MADD if
the US were to conclude it could survive a nuclear war.)

OTOH, some of his ideas were frowned upon then but not now. His treatment of
women and minorities was complex and too complicated for a full discussion
here. I do want to point out this discussion between Cronkite, Clarke, and
Heinlein during the Apollo 8 moon landing -
[https://youtu.be/b3LhFaPDeD0?t=1455](https://youtu.be/b3LhFaPDeD0?t=1455) .
Heinlein advocates for women in the space program, and says that women would
be equally good astronauts as men, and with a lower weight penalty. Clarke
objects to the idea of an all-woman crew, and Cronkite agrees saying they
wouldn't be able to decide which two would go down to the Moon's surface.

I suspect there are still many who frown on women in the space program, but
it's far less than it was.

I give these examples to show that it is possible to highlight specific
opinions and ideas of his. Heinlein expressed so many opinions and ideas, and
someone who agrees with his early views that a strong world government was
needed to ensure world peace (a la 'Space Cadet') might strongly disagree the
view that "An Armed Society is a Polite Society".

I don't know how "fearless" is a way to describe him in a way which is notably
appropriate for him.

FWIW, while LL was introduced in the 1940s in the serialized magazine version
of 'Methuselah's Children', most of the LL stories were written after 1950.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I think his views on nudity would have been the least offensive. Example..To
Sail Beyond The Sunset was really weird and awkward in so many ways but at the
same time, it is a book that I have read and re read many times. He certainly
empowered many young female readers..but at the same time, there was also
Friday which dealt with the difficult subject of rape. He was a feminist no
doubt but he also had some antiquated ideas (like women’s role in society l
and the glorification of procreation). He was a femininist without doubt.

My favourite wrt his treatment of gender is I Will Fear No Evil. Was he sci fi
writer or writer of social commentary? He was a legit sci fiction writer and
one of my favourites is All You Zombies where he deals with the paradox of
time travel and ideas like when you are your own grandparent was definitely
different. His juvenile series (Have Space Suit, Will Travel) were all benign
enough for young kids without any ‘corrupting’ thought seeds and upsetting
parents. His stories about parallel worlds and lives could be said to border
on metaphysical. His all encompassing free love themes might have been
scandalous and pornographic at his time altho it might merely invite eye
rolling or nervous dry laughter now.(I don’t know..I can only imagine how it
was in those times)

You are right about his contradictions but he had lived long enough to see
waves of changes in society. (I might be wrong about the timeline of his
various works pre and post 1950s) He was a military man and likely was always
a libertarian. And likely an atheist. He was also from an entirely different
era. But this theme was always to question authority and not accept what’s
handed to you..and always strive for freedom as a personal goal. As a girl,
that was important to me and to be able to place freedom over everything else.

~~~
eesmith
I don't usually think of "frowned upon" as a euphemism for "offensive", so
thank you for explaining what you meant. I asked if you could mention some
specific "frowned upon" ideas of his, and I'm still not sure. Was it free
love? Or libertarianism? Surely not feminism, which is the third theme you
mentioned.

It's hard for me to understand the full context of his later books, like
TSBTS. It feels as if he is trying to be semi-autobiographical, or at least
informed by personal history. The history of books like Peyton Place, and the
Kinsey Reports, show that a lot of how people actually lived wasn't talked
about. And of course there are communities which experimented in free love,
perhaps the most famous of which is the Oneida Community in the 1800s. This
makes it hard to tell how much of TSBTS reflects how things were, or if it was
only a small free love culture, or it's his projection of how it should be.

When you write "empowered many young female readers", which stories supported
that empowerment, and what sort of empowerment was it? I don't think TSBTS is
the go-to story for women who felt empowered by Heinlein.

To make myself clear, I think Heinlein had many strong women characters. Edith
Stone is a medical doctor, and Hazel a "founding Father" of Luna, a skilled
pilot, and better at writing space opera than her son. Wyoh is another
"founding Father", and critical to the revolution. "Jack" in 'Tunnel in the
Sky' is equally as skilled as Rod - they are part of the same class test - and
Rod's wiser and older sister even more competent. Holly, the protagonist of
'The Menace from Earth' and one of Heinlein's few female protagonists (in 1957
no less), aspires to be a starship designer, and is doing well at it.

I could go on, but I think this helps show that I have an idea of what I am
talking about.

My observation, though, is that Heinlein shows (IMO as a white male from the
US brought up in the Protestant faith) how strong women can still do well in a
male dominated societies. For examples: the ship captains and judge in
'Rolling Stones' are men, and the mayors in 'Tunnel' are both men. "Jack"
disguised the fact that she is a woman. The plot of 'Menace' is based on
Holly's relationship with Jeff, her starship designer partner. It goes from
friendship, to jealousy, to love, and at the end she's thinking about marrying
Jeff and including changing her name.

Or, take "Cliff and the Calories", where the protagonist Maureen decides that
she needs to lose weight because "It started with Cliff - most things do. I am
going to marry Cliff, only I haven't told him yet." She doesn't think it's
because of her "so-to-speak physical attributes. ... I have yet to find the
girl who would swap a twenty-one-inch waist and a good silhouette for sterling
merit ... a few wolf whistles never did any harm and are good for the morale."

Oh, my. And there's a line meant as a joke "if you will have that carried in
by eight Nubian slaves" ... that didn't age well!

Anyway, by the end we find that Cliff loves her Rubenesque figure, takes her
to the museum to show what that means, and '"What this country needs," said
Cliff, "is more plump girls - and more guys like me who appreciate them." ...
Cliff is such a wonderful man.'

Again, the story is based around the female's relationship with a man.

There are plenty of stories with a strong female character who isn't a love
interest. Take "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel." Peewee, the genius tomboy, is
more like a kid sister, though I think there's an intimation at the end that
she and Kip should be together once she is old enough. Mother Thing is an
extremely competent female character, whose actions are more behind-the-scenes
and supportive.

On the other hand, we also find that Kip's mother was his father's "star
pupil". Yet for the entire book she's there to be supportive. We have no other
information about her background, and it seems like a one-off line to justify
why Kip may be smarter than Peewee.

There's also the gender essentialism of "Mother Thing" and, later on, "Father
Thing". One of Heinlein's other characters (Hilda? in 'Beast'? brought up the
idea that males and females are two different species - something makes no
sense to me.)

(I've spent too much time on this, so I'm not going to dig up my books to
verify all the names now.)

There are several strong female characters in "Citizen of the Galaxy". The
woman on the slave planet who helped Thorby escape. She knows how to survive
in a patriarchal society, including bribes. The mother of the captain of the
Sisu, which is a matrilineal culture, and the Margaret Mead character who
explains is. I read this as bringing in his readings from the new results from
cultural anthropology. This is one of the things which makes Heinlein's
readings so distinct. The last is the woman at the end who switches her proxy
votes to give Thorby the election win. She knows how to survive in a
patriarchal society by being smart but hiding it as a society girl.

(See also the passenger in "Starman Jones" who is part of her planet's upper
class, and who hides her chess expertise from Jones.)

So, I can agree that Heinlein is a feminist, but he sits somewhere between
first-wave and second-wave feminists both chronologically and in terms of
ideas. He lacks the vocabulary and concepts that the latter feminists
movements would develop.

What makes it more complex is that we are seeing things often through his
characters. Take the transvestites in "The Year of the Jackpot", aka, the
"Silly Season" story. They are described as:

> The male member of the team wore a frilly feminine blouse but his skirt was
> a conservative Scottish kilt, his female companion wore a business suit and
> Homburg hat; she stared with lively interest

We soon find out that the female is also a lawyer, and are correctly
suspicious of the protagonist's intentions ("Potty") towards the woman who
strips on the street ("Meade"). Heinlein didn't have to make the female
transvestite be a lawyer, but he did, and he describes their attire as being
in good taste.

Then later on, Meade comments that the transvestites were 'characters in the
mixed-up clothes' while Potty describes them as:

> male-and-female dress customs were arbitrary, but they had seemed to be
> deeply rooted in the culture. When did the breakdown start? With Marlene
> Dietrich's tailored suits? By the late forties there was no male article of
> clothing that a woman could not wear in public but when had men started to
> slip over the line? Should he count the psychological cripples who had made
> the word "drag" a byword in Greenwich Village and Hollywood long before this
> outbreak?

Does Heinlein consider them to be 'psychological cripples'? Or is that only
the views of the character?

We then see "Or had it started with the resurgence of Scottish nationalism
reflected in the wearing of kilts by many Scottish-Americans". Which ties into
LL who wore a kilt.

Which ties back to 'To Sail Beyond The Sunset', because it's showing us that
the culture back in the 1950s was much more complex and knotty then the simple
version that tricked down to me when growing up.

This complexity embedded in his stories, even in one-off comments, is why I
think it's hard to figure out Heinlein's views simply by reading his books.
That's why I think you should highlight specific themes and details, rather
than stick with anodyne generalizations.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Wow! First of all, thank you for writing this!

(Also, English is not my first language. So somethings can get lost in the
English to English translations)

I agree that his opinions re women are sometimes contradictory. I can only
make assumptions about the man and the times that created the man.

1\. His free love and ideas about open marriage refreshing. I do have a dim
view of the notion of ‘marriage’ as we know it and I am not sure if its the
same as Heinlein’s POV re marriage.

2\. In a way, he celebrated marriages and multiple unions but it is rather
peculiar in that he didn’t see that as female empowerment as feminists would
see it because of his view of the role of ‘women’ and his celebration of
motherhood.

3\. The rape of Friday Jones and her sexual aggressiveness and the bizarre
notion that she would end up with her rapist. I don’t know if a female author
would have ended the story like that. Friday was a peek into a future with
Heinlein eyes ..he did that a lot...sometimes his books were a collection of
ideas rather than scenes or even a plot... imagining futures and that’s why he
is awesome. But sometimes his gender was painfully obvious. Friday was an
example.

4\. On another note, he did un-humanize Friday. She was AP..she wasn’t human.
She was not a human female afterall. But in the end, she had to embrace
indiginities of human females to be one of them.

5\. Heinlein’s girls in the Juvenile series grow up to be the same confident
achieving women in the books for adults, but they wear this aggressive sexual
mantle that sits uncomfortably and seems artificial. He is likely projecting
his own male desires upon a female character. His female characters are almost
male in their sexual proclivities. It’s jarring and awkward.

It’s not unlike...in a more benign way..Hollywood where the industry just
doesn’t know how to write female characters. There is either ‘chick-flicks’ or
flat two dimensional women created by male writers.

I often wonder..can I flesh out a male mind with my words if I were a writer?
That would be difficult. Even if I were to have a great understanding of the
male of the species, I cannot possibly encompass all the types. I would have
to resort to borrowing from archetypes.

Heinlein created his own female archetype but they acted like men. (I think he
was able to confront that in I fear no evil.

6\. Incest with pedophilia. Very uncomfortable. Even like when it was LL with
his own clones. Sometimes he comes across as an apologist for adult-child sex.

7\. I find the idea of group marriage appealing, but have a dim view of
‘marriage’ itself. While a lot of his views are mind expanding and forward
thinking, when you stumble upon the suspicion that it is likely an old man’s
dirty fantasies especially in light of his women all wanting to be baby making
machines, it throws you off.

8\. I don’t know how to divorce Heinlein, the visionary from Heinlein, the
horny old man with dirty fantasies. Is he one or the other? Is he both? Can I
hug the one without feeling icky about the other?

~~~
eesmith
Given your interest in 1, I think you should read more about the Oneida
community, as they were one of the rare cultures which encouraged group
marriage. See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage)
, which specifically calls out Heinlein. There is also the polyamory (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory)
), which is an active subculture at least in the US, as well as swinging
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_(sexual_practice)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_\(sexual_practice\))
).

The various literature about traditional poly marriages, which are nearly all
polygamous, does not describe a system which aligns well with current ideas of
feminism. That said, I know very little about the topic, though I did read 'In
my father's house : a memoir of polygamy'.

Some cultures, btw, have legal rights for cohabitation which make it
equivalent (or nearly so) to marriage.

There is a body of Heinlein studies, including the Heinlein Society (
[http://www.heinleinsociety.org/](http://www.heinleinsociety.org/) ) and
Patterson's extensive biographical works. For example,
[https://web.archive.org/web/20021016160050/http://members.ao...](https://web.archive.org/web/20021016160050/http://members.aol.com/agplusone/robert_a._heinlein_a_biogr.htm)
. If you really want to know more about Heinlein-the-person, you might try
those. I decided it wasn't worthwhile for me.

Friday, as you point out, is a difficult character to understand. She is an
AP, raised in a creche, trained as a spy/agent/courier. Not only was her life
was not her own, but her views were even less her own than for most. She may
have been trained that her body wasn't her own, that rape is an appropriate
means for the field she was in, and taught to expect being raped and how to
manage it. And most people saw her as a non-person, including her family in
New Zealand. That makes it really hard to disentangle Heinlein-the-person vs.
his portrayal of a character.

(The family in NZ, and the quick breakup after they find that she is an AP, is
an example of Heinlein depicting a negative to a group marriage. It seems they
were more into her for her money than for emotional attachment, and that one
or a small number of people in the marriage can force the others to expel a
spouse.)

Regarding, "she had to embrace indiginities of human females to be one of
them" \- this is a topic which comes up when I read discussions about the
problems facing trans-women. That's another topic I know little about, beyond
following a couple of blogs and watching the ContraPoints videos at
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNvsIonJdJ5E4EXMa65VYpA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNvsIonJdJ5E4EXMa65VYpA)
.

Regarding "His female characters are almost male in their sexual
proclivities." I ask that you re-think that. The idea of female/male
proclivities is cultural. I am a male, and don't have the 'proclivities' that
Heinlein characterizes. Some males are also asexual, and don't have any
proclivities. Your sentence would suggest that neither of us are really male.

I can't explain the incest thing.

"Adult-child sex" is different, though potentially overlapping. (I think
Heinlein was referring to incest between consenting adults, so 'child' in the
sense of 'the adult's adult child' is closer.) Still, that does occur a few
times, like in "The Door Into Summer". Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Door_into_Summer#Major_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Door_into_Summer#Major_themes)
:

> The early Heinlein biographer and critic Alexei Panshin, in his 1968
> biography Heinlein in Dimension, took note of a controversial theme: "The
> romantic situation in this story is a very interesting, very odd one: it is
> nothing less than a mutual sexual interest between an engineer of thirty and
> a girl of twelve ('adorable' is Heinlein's word for her), that culminates in
> marriage after some hop-scotching around in time to adjust their ages a
> bit."[3]:149–150 The novel "worried and bothered" John W. Campbell, who said
> "Bob can write a better story, with one hand tied behind him, than most
> people in the field can do with both hands. But Jesus, I wish that son of a
> gun would take that other hand out of his pocket."

Note also later on that page the description of "Frederica Virginia "Ricky"
Heinicke, physically an 11-year-old girl but emotionally almost adult. Like
all Heinlein's heroines from this period, she is an intelligent redhead, and
clearly modeled on Virginia Heinlein, even having a version of her name and
her childhood nickname, Rikki-Tikki-Tavi."

As another example, Tom's great-grandniece in 'Time for the Stars'.

I think to understand Heinlein's female characters, you also need to know more
about Virginia Heinlein and their relationship. And be aware that the
Heinleins were not always truthful about their accounts of their history. See
the note in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein)
that 'Grumbles From the Grave' "hews closely to his earlier official bios,
omitting the same facts (the first of his three marriages, his early left-wing
political activities) and repeating the same fictional anecdotes (the short
story contest)."

You write "can I flesh out a male mind with my words if I were a writer?" The
classic SF example is James Tiptree, Jr. which was a pseudonym of Alice
Sheldon. Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tiptree_Jr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tiptree_Jr).
:

> Readers, editors and correspondents were permitted to assume sex, and
> generally, but not invariably, they assumed "male". There was speculation,
> based partially on the themes in her stories, that Tiptree might be female.
> Robert Silverberg wrote "It has been suggested that Tiptree is female, a
> theory that I find absurd, for there is to me something ineluctably
> masculine about Tiptree's writing. ... Harlan Ellison had introduced
> Tiptree's story in the anthology Again, Dangerous Visions with the opinion
> that "[Kate] Wilhelm is the woman to beat this year, but Tiptree is the
> man."

~~~
jelliclesfarm
\+ I am familiar with Oneida. I am not so much interested in group marriage as
I am in the institution of marriage itself..as in why do we need it? I have
thought long and hard about it..if we didn’t have religion, would we need the
institution of marriage? Marriage or rather formal legal marriage seems to be
largely for the benefit of the state so they can tax and interfere with lives
of citizens. Religion itself seems to need a large population all the time...I
have never believed that there has been a true separation of church and state
anywhere in the world...the state just seamlessly took over the power over how
people live from religious institutions.

If we magically ‘forget’ the concept of marriage, as we know it tomorrow..what
would change for us?

NOTHING.

\+ Re Friday: I wonder if Heinlein made her AP only because she could be
considered as ‘the other’ which likely separated the experiences of her
character from the writer and the reader’s own identity and projections. If
that’s what Heinlein tried to do, he failed.

I am trying to tie this back to how we would..in the future..consider cyborgs
or robots or other APs. What would define sentience? I think heinlein..in his
own way...was probably testing..Asimov like..rights and treatment of sentient
non humans.

\+ re male/female sexual proclivities, I think Heinlein did not take it
lightly. I will fear no evil was entirely dedicated to the questions of what
defines gender and what is it like to be trapped in the other genders
body/mind. He approached the subject fearlessly. But apparently he was gravely
ill and we don’t know who really ‘finished’ the book beyond the first draft.
But it certainly sounded like Heinlein. This is one of the reasons I adore
Heinlein.

\+ you said, “your sentence suggests that neither of us are male”. You
inadvertently touched upon a pet theory of mine. That ‘malesness’ is a
mutation. All zygotes are female by default. It’s because of SRY gene that it
turns ‘male’, as it were...being ‘male’ is merely ‘not being female’ having
mutated from the default. So I consider the Y to be largely faulty code. I am
not being a ‘rabid feminist’...I have been called that before but it can’t be
more further than the truth..I do not hate men...I just find them amusing and
interesting and annoying until I find them alien.

Regardless, I am sure this wasn’t the response you were expecting. So back on
topic..female desire and sexual proclivities are somewhat standardized ...that
doesn’t mean that women veer from the norm. (Ditto with men), but the
awkwardness with Heinlein’s portrayal of female sexuality bordering on
aggressive male sexuality seems forced because it’s almost like he wants to
imprint maleness as default upon the female. It’s just ...well..odd. It
doesn’t ‘fit or sit well’. I cannot articulate better.

\+ i did not know about Virginia and Heinlein. Having said that, I often think
of the other masterpiece..Nabokov’s Lolita. But HH took the voice of the
unreliable narrator. Towards the end, the reader had empathy for HH because
they have walked down the path with him and at the end of it, they want to
hold his hand and comfort him. He is a monster but we feel sorry for him. We
‘understand’ him. Heinlein otoh is icky..his characters are aloof and we don’t
want to be seen walking with him.

\+ re authors’ gender..I have often thought that the most relatable writing
comes from lived experiences. While a woman can write ‘like a man’, it might
just as well because her lived experience reflected that...bit Heinlein writes
women like a man. And he doesn’t do it from a third person narrative but from
a first person narrative..which ..like I said before just doesn’t ‘fit’right.
But that’s just my 2c.

~~~
eesmith
Thank you for your clarification. I was under the mistaken assumption that you
were interested in alternatives to monogamous marriage, eg, might be poly-
curious. Instead, you were questioning the existence of marriage. For that you
will have to look towards cultural anthropology. A quick search shows finds,
for example,
[http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-978019...](http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0016.xml)

> Over the years as well, anthropologists have debated what lies at the very
> core of marriage as an institution and as a relationship, whether it is
> economic sharing, sexual access, childbearing and parenthood, or
> reproductive success. They also have debated whether marriage is best
> described in terms of sentiment and subjectivity, social or mental
> structures, or transactions and strategic choice.

That is far outside of my depth. I can recommend looking at countries which
have both formal marriage arrangements and less formal cohabitation laws to
see some of the benefits of having a legal recognition. For example,
[https://www.island.is/en/family/marriage_and_partners/co_hab...](https://www.island.is/en/family/marriage_and_partners/co_habiting_partners/)
says that "rights of cohabitating people are affected by whether their
cohabitation is registered or not", so they exist even without formal
recognition, and "Individuals in cohabitation do not bear any responsibility
for each other's financial support, and do not have the right of inheritance
towards one another".

As an example of the latter, from
[http://hhogman.se/cohabitation.htm](http://hhogman.se/cohabitation.htm) ,
"Stieg Larsson, the renowned Swedish writer who lived sambo for many years
with Eva Gabrielsson. When he died in 2004, his father and brother, not Eva,
inherited his wealth worth millions. There were law suits and a settlement,
but this could have been avoided with a will."

See also [https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/wonder-list-bill-
weir...](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/wonder-list-bill-weir-
iceland/index.html) for one US citizen's view about marriage, or the lack
thereof, in Iceland.

Regarding "formal legal marriage seems to be largely for the benefit of the
state so they can tax and interfere with lives of citizens".

Given my quote from earlier, your hypothesis does not sound correct. As an
example, the medieval Icelandic state deliberately avoided having a strong
centralized state. Your hypothesis would suggest that this would mean there
was no need for marriage, yet we know from the sagas that there was marriage.
See for example
[https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...](https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=his)
, which includes descriptions of marriage in pre-Christianity Iceland.

Here is one thing that would change if we magically forget the concept of
marriage tomorrow. If the next day I have a medical condition which renders me
unconscious, who has the right to make medical decisions for me? I am married,
so under the current legal system my spouse - someone I voluntarily decided to
marry, and who best knows my opinions - has the first option. Not my family-
by-blood, as that relationship wasn't voluntary.

Here's another - who has the right to visit me when I'm in the hospital?

These can all be addressed without marriage, but the result is still some sort
of registration system, with some sort of arbitration system to decide how to
manage conflicts. Which is close to what cohabitation systems are already
like.

I cannot conjecture on Heinlein's purpose in writing Friday. It may be
addressed better in some of the references I gave earlier.

Regarding again "dedicated to the questions of what defines gender", I think
he did so within a binary gender essentialist viewpoint. I don't think he was
'fearless' in examining what the larger topic of what it means to be queer.
The example I quoted about transvestites is one of the few in Heinlein's
works. In his later novels, name one character who is asexual. 'Slipstick'
Libby was a man who became a women, but her transition was nothing like what
trans-women now experience.

My comments were not so inadvertent, in that you mentioned your pet theory in
recent comments of your, which I reviewed before responding. However, I don't
believe that your use of the terms "mutant", and the terms "male" and "female"
for zygotes, have much biological meaning, and certainly not once we get into
culturally-defined gender.

I also don't think your use of "faulty" has any biological meaning but is your
personal interpretation. No system which has been around for 100+ million
years can be described as "faulty". Monotremes don't have the SRY gene but do
have males and females. The XY system also evolved several times, including in
"some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo)." It's
further believed to have evolved from the temperature-dependent sex
determination system of reptiles, meaning that male/female distinction is far
older than the Y chromosome.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I wrote a lot and lost it. I am going to paste what little I could
retrieve..it ends mid sentence and so I don’t know where I was going with
it..[..][..]+ maybe inheritance laws and personal rights processes and even
medical decisions will become easily streamlined.

Currently everything involves a lawyer/attorney. And time. And money.

\+ this makes me think of something else(likely unrelated. Or not.) what
if..in our future..we move to entirely paperless non monetary transactions. In
that we own ‘credits’ rather than property or wealth.

Wealth can be in the form of credits as well as all material things. And
immaterial things as well. Like reputation.(I know..like Black Mirror. But not
in a punitive way)

We already have credit scores. But some things are not monetized. Like
intelligence or beauty or qualities like kindness. The flip side is that a
lack of beauty or intelligence can stem from a biased pov. But if it is non
punitive, only positives get scored.

The ‘credits’ can be transferable and can be inherited like any transaction.
And if someone isn’t on the transaction list, they are not part of the
inheritance. Every time you add someone to your list, they have access to some
part of your life. Maybe your accountant gets an annual retainer automatically
but he can’t make decisions about whether you can pull the plug. Maybe your
girlfriend got downgraded to just visitation rights. So basically, the list is
multi tiered.

It’s also a way to keep track of ...[..]

do you think any of the above warrants comments or a reply. I had a couple of
meetings so my memory is disjointed now..I can’t seem to grasp the line of
thought and where I was going with that...apologies. ETA: I am going to give a
reply another go tonight. I am sure I had something more to say.

~~~
eesmith
This conversation, while interesting, is no longer connected with Heinlein and
increasingly farther from something I can meaningful contribute to.

To bring it back to Heinlein, a quote from "Space Cadet":

> The staple recreation in the Randolph, as it is in all boarding schools, was
> the bull session. The talk ranged through every possible subject and was
> kept spiced by Arensa's original and usually radical ideas.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I must agree even though I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for the engagement.

