399 replies to this topic

[Datepalm]

Shryke, on 13 April 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Yeah, cause nobody pays attention to the Bible on gender issues anymore.

I see your point, (really, I do. My town's current feminist issues are about whether women should be able to sit at the front of the bus) but it's kind of defeatist, from my pov, to allow the debate to go there. Bakker is not doing anyone any favours by trying to disprove the bible or whatever (Nor, actually, do I think that he's writing to a Jerusalem audience) it's like arguing about separation of church and state by making a list of historical inconsistencies in the Bible. I think the ability of a modern person to use the Bible to justify themselves is based on totally modern paradigm of sexism, and its what needs to be dealt with.

[Reek]

Datepalm, on 13 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Isn't this kind of the issue thats been running in GenChat for a while, about the role of men in a would-be feminist world? Are men, in their great, nebulous, uniform mass going to run off scared when shockingly confronted with a female character thats not a whore or a virgin? Do they really need to have their heads pounded with didactic bricks? I mean, what kind of enjoyment is this supposed platonic-ur-male-bakker-reader actually deriving from those books, since if they fail, they're misogynist crap, but if they succeed, they're supposed to make men understand...what?

Some people need a whack in the head with a clueXfour.

With regards to men living in a feminist world, I think that is where some men take issue.  Why do they have to live in a feminist world?  Why can't they live in a society that is egalitarian, where gender has no bearing on status?  Where they aren't the ones that feel like they have to make the first move on a perspective crush?  Or hold the door open?  Or let a woman off the elevator first?  or a million other things your grandma told you you had to do in order to be polite?

As far as what pleasure is derived from reading Bakker?  I dunno, subtext aside, I think the plot, the setting and the characters are very interesting.  I can see how someone could read the series purely for the plot and never really have to confront issues of gender equality at all if they didn't feel like acknowledging it is there below the surface of the text waiting to be examined.  It'd be a shame if they did but I feel like there is enough there that if you are actually going to sit through all the philosophical wankery in them, you are already predisposed to examining the nuances of tough questions.

I just feel like just because it isn't a perfect effort that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to offer.  I mean, I really like Dune but I could pick out a hundred things that I don't like about how the story, characters or themes are portrayed.  I could say that about any piece of media or entertainment.  Just because there are valid critizisms, it doesn't make the good parts of the work any less enjoyable.

With regards to what Bakker is trying to make men understand... It's hard to say with any certainty since he hasn't actually written the final book of the series yet, but I think he is less trying to make a specific statement and more just getting people to think about why they think the things that they think.

Some people's views are never challenged and I feel like Bakker is making an effort to get people like that to think about it.

[Lummel]

Larry., on 13 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

With his "And as far as proof goes, I invite you to check out my blog. I GUARANTEE you, I've spent more time battling GENUINE misogyny on the web than you, 'mate.'" line, I believe Bakker has now crossed into Goodkind territory.  Impressive in all the wrong ways.

Datepalm, on 13 April 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

I see it as one of those dramatic movie voiceovers - "They all battled misogyny...But only Bakker battled REAL MISOGYNY. On his blog."

One of the great things about this forum is I can learn about all kinds of authors who I'm best off never reading.  I find this very efficient.  Thanks for your help.

[Sci-2]

Quote

Why do they have to live in a feminist world? Why can't they live in a society that is egalitarian, where gender has no bearing on status? Where they aren't the ones that feel like they have to make the first move on a perspective crush? Or hold the door open? Or let a woman off the elevator first? or a million other things your grandma told you you had to do in order to be polite?

......nah, you know I'll just let the women here give you that clue-X-four you were talking about. ;-)

[Reek]

sciborg2, on 13 April 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

......nah, you know I'll just let the women here give you that clue-X-four you were talking about. ;-)

I'm not saying that is what I personally think.  I'm just saying there are a lot of people out there that think like that.  And they will never be challenged unless someone they respect or admire brings the issue up.

[Lyanna Stark]

Reek, on 13 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

But really, my main point was that Bakker wants to speak primarily to men so it is not really a surprise to me that women are not swayed/impressed by his efforts.

This is actually quite interesting to me as I always thought feminism is feminism, so to speak, not that there were different types of feminism that women and men could understand.

What in Bakker's writing makes it easier for men to understand misogyny? I have read at least a few novels that could be labelled feminist critiques, so I feel I should at least theoretically recognise one, but I am still unsure about exactly what Bakker is trying to tackle with PoN, but tbh I had never considered that to be a failing due to my gender.


EDIT: Thing that can help make up for all the misogynist crap on the internet.

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 13 April 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[Shryke]

Lummel, on 13 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

One of the great things about this forum is I can learn about all kinds of authors who I'm best off never reading.  I find this very efficient.  Thanks for your help.

The author is not dead apparently.

[Shryke]

Datepalm, on 13 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

I see your point, (really, I do. My town's current feminist issues are about whether women should be able to sit at the front of the bus) but it's kind of defeatist, from my pov, to allow the debate to go there. Bakker is not doing anyone any favours by trying to disprove the bible or whatever (Nor, actually, do I think that he's writing to a Jerusalem audience) it's like arguing about separation of church and state by making a list of historical inconsistencies in the Bible. I think the ability of a modern person to use the Bible to justify themselves is based on totally modern paradigm of sexism, and its what needs to be dealt with.

Well, firstly, why is there only one debate? And more importantly for some of the people here, why are you letting Bakker drive it if there is?

And even if you agree Bakker isn't "doing anyone any favours" (which I would disagree with), why should he be?

You are talking like the real problem is that Bakker isn't tackling the issues you want tackled the way you want them tackled. It's kinda silly.

Why does the existence of a deconstruction of the gender politics of one of the most influential books in history need justification based on it's relation to some branch of modern feminism?

[Reek]

Lyanna Stark, on 13 April 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

This is actually quite interesting to me as I always thought feminism is feminism, so to speak, not that there were different types of feminism that women and men could understand.

What in Bakker's writing makes it easier for men to understand misogyny? I have read at least a few novels that could be labelled feminist critiques, but I am still unsure about exactly what Bakker is trying to tackle with PoN, but tbh I had never considered that to be a failing due to my gender.

This can easily slide into a semantic discussion about the meanings of the words feminism/gender equality/etc.  That's not a topic I want to get into.

What I am saying is that part of what Bakker is trying to do in his novels is examine the role of women characters in not just fantasy novels but also their role in history.  That's just one of his themes though.  It's not the only one.

I think part of the reason he fails to convince a lot of women that he has something valid to say on the topic of gender equality is because what he is talking about in his novels is so self-evident to them that it's not something they need to be told.  They experience it every day in multiple aspects of their lives.

Bakker is trying to show his male audience an aspect of humanity/culture that they have never really been forced to examine when reading typical fantasy fare.  And again, this is why I think a lot of women have a problem with what he is depicting.  He is attempting to shine a light on a problem that he as a white man can never truly comprehend.

The point I am trying to make is that he is at least making an effort to bring benign ignorant people to the table for a discussion.  He is equipped to do this because he is a semi-popular fantasy author with an audience of young impressionable males that are going to be more receptive to him saying "Hey guys, you really ought to think about why this sort of stuff matters" than someone who will come off as hostile or combative or dismiss them out of hand for not being scholars of feminist thought right out of the gate.

[Datepalm]

Shryke -

- Before we derail into the whole 'Authors should write what I want them to write' debate, i'll clarify that I think Bakker can write whatever he wants, I will defend to the death his right to write whatever he wants, and will endlessly enjoy watching him make a fool of himself in the comments to every single blog on the whole internet, as long as he wants. That aside:

I am trying to say why I think Bakkers books are rather sexist, despite of his intentions. (Just dead enough, the author.) For that I set them into a modern context and into the modern debate around modern modes of expression of sexism. And, yeah, you're right - theres more than one debate and lots of them have never heard of Bakker, sure. Bakker, alas, is not actually that important, in the general planet wide sort of level. But we're talking about a fairly small tea cup here, of the way characters are presented in fantasy novels, and he's a big lump in that tea cup.

Quote

an audience of young impressionable males that are going to be more receptive to him saying "Hey guys, you really ought to think about why this sort of stuff matters"

Dunno, I have a pet theory that didactism never works as a mind changer. I think the way you make impressionable young men think that women are equal to men, is to present them with many examples of female characters that are written with equal attention, diversity, context and empathy to men, not to write three dead naked hookers then hang a sign on them saying, "Hey, you dumb penis-person, this is bad. Feel bad about it, jerk. Are you a feminist yet?"

[Lyanna Stark]

Reek,

I see your point with what he is trying to do, (and I appreciate your well thought out reply) but I feel I remain ambivalent about it.

As a feminist reading his novels (granted: only the first three) I got the opposite view from what he actually tried to achieve. The way the female characters are drawn, what they are presented as, the extreme and often gratuitous sexualisation, what in their portrayal convinces the audience that feminism is a good thing, or even needed? As someone who is big believer in sisterhood, I found nothing in Bakker's description of women to empathise with. If someone like me, who is already a convert have a hard time with this, what would make it easier for someone who is unconvinced?

If I take away that women should, in fact, remain metaphysically inferior, what will someone "new" take away from the reading?

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 13 April 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[Shryke]

Datepalm,

Fair enough.

I just don't see the problem with an explicit decontrustion of one of the most influential books in history.

Especially through a medium (and thus to an audience) that is itself obsessed with that history, where said book was even more influential then it is now.

It came up in another thread recently comparing world building and such (I think it was the Bakker vs Abercrombie one) and one of the things pointed out that really rings true imo is that Bakker's characters really feel more medieval in many ways. They feel religious. Like, really religious like they "should". And religious in a tradition with some truly regressive ideas about the place of women and sexuality in general. This isn't just society or go-to-church-cause-your-parents-make-you religion, this is what they believed, whole hog. This is how they believed the world was constructed. To them, it's not sociology, it's physics.

I don't think it does the modern world or the genre or the reader any disservice to smack them in the face with that fact.

To dovetail with Reek's posts above, it kinda reminds me of Rome. When discussing the explicit occasionally over-the-top sexuality in that show, the creators talked about how they really wanted to hit the audience right on the nose with how differently the Romans viewed sex and sexuality. In large part, according to them anyway, because of the lack of Christian influences. They wanted to really hammer home how differently these people thought about that aspect of humanity.

And Bakker, it seems to me, is after the same thing.

[Sci-2]

Quote

I don't think it does the modern world or the genre or the reader any disservice to smack them in the face with that fact.

I think the issue here is that it is an academic point but not necessarily one that resonates with the readers Bakker presumably was trying to reach.

It makes liberals nod their heads and thank Carl Sagan for the modern world, but does it really change hearts and minds?

[Datepalm]

Quote

And Bakker, it seems to me, is after the same thing.

I just don't know that he succeeds. Its an interesting attempt (even admirable, until his ego ran out of control and he starts instructing us how to read his books 'right') but I think hes failing in creating that modern/medieval distance, which is why i'm calling him on modern issues too. He writes characters with medievally sexist mindsets, but a books with a modernly sexist sensebility. Like I said, our issues are not their issues, even if people are still clinging to the bible. We do not, by and large, have an issue in our society with women being considered inferior becuase they were made from a rib, but we do have an issue with them being considered inferior because their bodies are valued over their minds. So Bakker is all like, look, these dudes, they think this stuff about the rib thing, aren't they dumb, but he's doing it by showing a naked woman and how much more interesting her body is than her mind. (er, so to speak.)

I'd be ok with him deconstructing the bible if he wasn't walking into a whole different pit at the same time. He can deconstruct what he likes, I don't care, I care that he's being sexist about it.

[Prince Alexander]

Bakker lost me on admitting to trying to deliver a message to his audience. Not saying I'm only in it for bread and circuses, but I'll take my own damn message, thank you very much. I'm of a belief that all stories are discovered and shared, rather than created and owned. An author infusing what they discovered with a intentional message of their own (through tone, wording, etc), speaks a bit of arrogance to me. Yes, there are works of art that do pull it off. But they are created by much better men and women than Bakker, and those people are allowed this piece of arrogance.

His attitude about (paraphrased) writing ultra sophisticated in a trash genre is also a headscratcher, and not in a good way. If he subscribes to the idea that fantasy is commonly viewed as trash genre, he is probably around a few decades behind on feminist progress as well.

[Shryke]

Prince Alexander, on 13 April 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Bakker lost me on admitting to trying to deliver a message to his audience. Not saying I'm only in it for bread and circuses, but I'll take my own damn message, thank you very much. I'm of a belief that all stories are discovered and shared, rather than created and owned. An author infusing what they discovered with a intentional message of their own (through tone, wording, etc), speaks a bit of arrogance to me. Yes, there are works of art that do pull it off. But they are created by much better men and women than Bakker, and those people are allowed this piece of arrogance.

Wait, you are mad he's admitted he's trying to deliver a message to the audience. You realise this makes you mad at like ... most good authors, right?

Quote

His attitude about (paraphrased) writing ultra sophisticated in a trash genre is also a headscratcher, and not in a good way. If he subscribes to the idea that fantasy is commonly viewed as trash genre, he is probably around a few decades behind on feminist progress as well.

Fantasy is commonly viewed that way. I'm not sure what people you talk to that it's not.

[Reek]

Quote

I see your point with what he is trying to do, (and I appreciate your well thought out reply) but I feel I remain ambivalent about it.

As a feminist reading his novels (granted: only the first three) I got the opposite view from what he actually tried to achieve. The way the female characters are drawn, what they are presented as, the extreme and often gratuitous sexualisation, what in their portrayal convinces the audience that feminism is a good thing, or even needed? As someone who is big believer in sisterhood, I found nothing in Bakker's description of women to empathise with. If someone like me, who is already a convert have a hard time with this, what would make it easier for someone who is unconvinced?

If I take away that women should, in fact, remain metaphysically inferior, what will someone "new" take away from the reading?

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that a lot of people want to make a big issue out of the sexism/gender equality themes in Bakker's novel when really it is just a slice of what he is trying to get across philosophically and metaphysically.  I understand that what he depicts is pretty frikkin gruesome and it isn't fun to think about.  Especially for women in Earwa.

But at the same time I think that is sort of his point.  Traditionally fantasy writing is about escapism.  Going to place where the cares of the real world are not really an issue.  Or the big problems in society can be glossed over or made more digestible with proper use of plot or setting or characterization.

With Bakker though, he is making it so obvious, so difficult to ignore, that it HAS to be recognized by the reader.  I don't think he is so much concerned about pushing a particular platform of feminism (whatever that word/concept even means anymore) and is more just attempting to get people to recognize that some of the tropes of the novels they admire are not really very flattering to real women out there.

I feel like he is coming more from the neutral ground, trying to get people just to admit there is a problem not just with the way women are treated in our society, but lots of other important cultural issues too.  He's prepping people who have no background in feminism for a discussion with real feminists.

With regards to the whole metaphysically inferior thing, there is still one book of the series left and I expect that entire meme to be turned over on its head before the end in a most spectacular fashion.

[Shryke]

Datepalm, on 13 April 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

I just don't know that he succeeds. Its an interesting attempt (even admirable, until his ego ran out of control and he starts instructing us how to read his books 'right') but I think hes failing in creating that modern/medieval distance, which is why i'm calling him on modern issues too. He writes characters with medievally sexist mindsets, but a books with a modernly sexist sensebility. Like I said, our issues are not their issues, even if people are still clinging to the bible. We do not, by and large, have an issue in our society with women being considered inferior becuase they were made from a rib, but we do have an issue with them being considered inferior because their bodies are valued over their minds. So Bakker is all like, look, these dudes, they think this stuff about the rib thing, aren't they dumb, but he's doing it by showing a naked woman and how much more interesting her body is than her mind. (er, so to speak.)

I'd be ok with him deconstructing the bible if he wasn't walking into a whole different pit at the same time. He can deconstruct what he likes, I don't care, I care that he's being sexist about it.

So your issue is he is, in your opinion, writing his message in a sexist way? Just trying to get what you are saying.


And, as a separate point, I'd say we clearly have an issue with people who view women as intrinsically inferior in our modern world. They tend to use different reasons these days or no reason at all, although many still use the bible. But either way, alot of it can still be traced back to the kind of mindset Bakker is writing about, even if the people in question aren't aware of it.

[Prince Alexander]

Shryke, on 13 April 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Wait, you are mad he's admitted he's trying to deliver a message to the audience. You realise this makes you mad at like ... most good authors, right?

Well, as I noted, some/many do pull it off. Bakker is good, but he is not as good as those who do. I think that's pretty obvious - there wouldn't be such polarized reception if he was clearly awesome at delivering his message.

IMO, his books would read much better and have bigger audience if he stuck with GRRM's formula: no messages except the captainobvious "everyone is good and bad". In other words, if you can't with 100% certainty do good with your message, at least do no/as little as possible evil. Bakker has a capability to incite thinking beyond simple consumption in his readers, and that's awesome... and that's where he should stop. Leave delivering actual messages to the true geniuses.

Disclaimer: I've only read 1 book of his. I do try to follow his adventures in the blogland, though.

Edited by Prince Alexander, 13 April 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[Shryke]

sciborg2, on 13 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

I think the issue here is that it is an academic point but not necessarily one that resonates with the readers Bakker presumably was trying to reach.

It makes liberals nod their heads and thank Carl Sagan for the modern world, but does it really change hearts and minds?

Does anything?

Personally I think a good illustration of the sexist nature of historical religion "snuck in", so to speak, through a narrative work is far more likely to make a reader start thinking about the issue then any sort of head on assault via some blog or academic paper or what have you.