Jump to content

Bakker and Women


Maia

Recommended Posts

That comes across, yes. It's just that the male characters are painted with a much more varied brush than the female characters, and then he says he was deliberately limiting the roles of women well beyond what was the case in an equivalent period, and for some reason that means it's all about sex, and so there's nothing to them but sex if you look at it in a certain way.

I can't see why he went so far with the women, and yet didn't do something similar with the men. Maybe it'll be clear by the final book of the series.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1675243' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.07']OTOH, I definitely disagree about the agenda. I think Bakker has some very didactic things he's trying to get across. The only puzzle for me is where all this seeming problematizing of women fits into the larger framework. So far, I haven't seen an answer to that. It may be that with future installments, the place of it will make sense, but right now it seems to me that it doesn't comfortably fit in with everything else that Bakker has expressed through the work.[/quote]

This is my issue as well. I'm willing to accept that he's trying to make some kind of point, but I really cannot see what that point would be.

His points on realism and literary stereotypes are at odds with each other. Perhaps I've just misinterpreted his comments on realism. I'm almost kind of inclined to be charitable on this one, because it [i]is[/i] so clear that the characters are intentionally literary stereotypes, but I just can't make it all hang together.

Somebody ask the guy, huh?

And Bale, by sugar-coated, I mean easy to digest. Which is what stereotypes are. The older woman who thinks she's hot? She's also a bitch. Easy to digest - it would be a lot harder to process if she weren't. The pretty young girl? Not so smart. Fits our stereotypes. Which makes perfect sense if he was intentionally writing stereotypes, but following a realism analysis, it doesn't, because people in real life have character traits that defy good and bad stereotypes and it takes some thought to process to understand their motivations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1675243' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.07']I think it's true -- men use sex as a weapon in the series. It's just that they have a bunch of other weapons and options, and women don't. They just have sex. It's kind of one-note.[/quote]Esmi has her intelligence, but her culture only permits her to show or display her sex. She is a pariah. But she is also playing a double-life, which is hinted at when she talks of her dealings with clients, in regards to her intellectual curiosity. Although she is a highly intelligent woman, most of the people of the Three Seas would only use her for sex and dismiss her intelligence as being unnecessary for who she is.

[quote]OTOH, I definitely disagree about the agenda. I think Bakker has some very didactic things he's trying to get across. The only puzzle for me is where all this seeming problematizing of women fits into the larger framework. So far, I haven't seen an answer to that. It may be that with future installments, the place of it will make sense, but right now it seems to me that it doesn't comfortably fit in with everything else that Bakker has expressed through the work.[/quote]Part of it just seems to serve to show how real and yet incredibly artificial socio-cultural restraints are for women. All it took was for one person to rip a page out of a book. It is a display of just about how arbitrary subjugation can be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1674776' date='Feb 5 2009, 11.20']I don't see Cult of Yatwer pacifyng any feminists.

SPOILER: TJE
They are really nasty characters and their agenda is definitely unsympathetic. One thing must be said for them though: they do have a shitload of agenda.
[/quote]

Well damn near everybody in the books is an unsympathetic bastard, that much at least is equal.

SPOILER: The Judging Eye
I also don't know if it will pacify any feminists, i was just wondering if Bakker was attempting to. Either way the Cult definitely brings something different to the table - they are an extremely popular matriarchal institution, they have access to a different and powerful source of magic, and the only sexual abuse that was carried out was done by THEM to a young man. On the surface of things it certainly sounds tit for tat.


[quote name='harrol' post='1675207' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.44']What offends me is the way Bakker portrays men. They are either devious sex addicts that make fortresses out of their ignorant beliefs and heartless murderers or the ignorant masses willing to throw away their lifes for the best liar, or better yet intelligent and impotent whinners like Akka and to a degree even Cnaiur. To add the topping to Bakkers assualt on men was just before the attack on Shimeh and Kellhus looked out on the large crowd of men and described them as round eyed apes. Scott is just so sexist.[/quote]

You forget, he is also extra-terrestialist. Everybody knows aliens only cum in peace.

Also, historically and anthropologically speaking, inter species breeding always ends badly - just look at aids. The Inchoroi should have evolved out of raping humans millennia ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matrim,

Esmi is intelligent, but her intelligence is virtually meaningless in the trilogy. It just makes her a prize in the context of the story.

As to the idea for why ... That's a thought, certainly. I'll have to ponder it a bit more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Raidne' post='1675271' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.24']And Bale, by sugar-coated, I mean easy to digest. Which is what stereotypes are. The older woman who thinks she's hot? She's also a bitch. Easy to digest - it would be a lot harder to process if she weren't. The pretty young girl? Not so smart. Fits our stereotypes. Which makes perfect sense if he was intentionally writing stereotypes, but following a realism analysis, it doesn't, because people in real life have character traits that defy good and bad stereotypes and it takes some thought to process to understand their motivations.[/quote]

I guess I see them more as survivors/products of their own environment. The Empress has always been exposed to games of power and she uses what tools she has available. I always assumed that while her husband was living and purportedly had all the power, she was doing what she could to undermine his heir's mental state so that in the future, when hubby dies, she has an element of control over the new emperor.

Serwe being a not smart pretty girl - again her looks may be her asset and her curse but I don't agree that she fits the "dumb blonde" stereotype that we perceive as it is today. Rather, she's an uneducated slave girl so of course she could be viewed as "dumb" and too trusting of the first person who appears to take care of her.

ETA: Ran, I see Esmi's intelligence as an illustration of how wasteful a society can be if it is not balanced by both men and women having an equal opportunity to be in 'positions of power'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1675306' date='Feb 5 2009, 14.56']Matrim,

Esmi is intelligent, but her intelligence is virtually meaningless in the trilogy. It just makes her a prize in the context of the story.[/quote]I thought that she proved herself intelligent enough when she became Kellhus's spiritual second. Although her power stems from Kellhus, so did the power of his other underlings in a manner similar to how vassals derive power from their king or lord. Kellhus is not just using her to breed heirs, but he trusts her abilities enough to rule.

[quote]As to the idea for why ... That's a thought, certainly. I'll have to ponder it a bit more.[/quote]At first when I read it, I thought "Is that really all it took?" But then I could not help but wonder while reading that what it would have been like if Kellhus had instead had the Bible and ripped out the page with Lev 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination.") in front of a sexually repressed homosexual in such a dark culture. And it is arguable that Moe did something similar to this with Cnaiur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I thought that she proved herself intelligent enough when she became Kellhus's spiritual second. Although her power stems from Kellhus, so did the power of his other underlings in a manner similar to how vassals derive power from their king or lord. Kellhus is not just using her to breed heirs, but he trusts her abilities enough to rule.[/quote]Eh. It seems clear from the prologue to TTT that her intelligence natively wasn't what he cared about; he cared about using her for progeny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Outside may be an important factor in Eärwa's unusual degree of repression of women. If the gods from the time of the Tusk are still around and powerful they could be a force for societal stagnation. I think there's evidence that the spirits of the dead, some of which are powerful enough to be called gods, like to influence the world by doing things like inserting thoughts into people's heads. In this scenario, all the dead misogynists of bygone eras are still there somewhere, acting as Influences to the extent of their power, doing things like shouting "No! No! No!" to random sorcerers who start to think about recruiting women.

That kind of thing can only really be fixed by altering the balance of the Outside as long as humans still have souls. And the balance of the Outside is slow to change, especially as the newly-dead have been influenced by the old mores throughout their lifetime.

I think that kind of plot twist could work rather well, actually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1674889' date='Feb 6 2009, 00.46']To say that changing some of the dynamics of at least one of the key female leads doesn't make sense within the context of a story is a complete waste of breath, because an author can do whatever the hell he pleases. Within a male dominated society in RL, there existed possible parallels for him to draw from for women that were not all based on some misguided notion that women's only real source of power was sex. It doesn't require the monumental change that you seem to think, Mackaxx, nor is it something deseigned to suite everyone or their "delicate" sensibilities. Thats just posturing.[/quote]

Again, yes, the author can do whatever he pleases. The story the author wants to write obviously wasn't one with a powerful egyptian/whatever queen in it though. If for some really weird reason that offends you then this isnt the book for you. The second to last line there about the only power women having in this book being sex seems absurd to me, did you read the same book? There certainly wasnt much sexy time between esmi and akka for example but she is apparently a whoring whore who whores and that makes her less than human. I must have msised all those chapters with her in it where all that was going on was fucking though.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1674889' date='Feb 6 2009, 00.46']Tirade about the silly little barbarian piece[/quote]

The aside was about Cnair more specifically and yes, it was brought up to enter the realm of the absurd. Perhaps if I were native american or aboriginal this might be a bit different though. Personally I consider the women all being whores to be pretty damned absurd myself.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1674889' date='Feb 6 2009, 00.46']But i digress. At the end of the day, Bakker's potrayal of women is however he wishes it to be. He wrote it, he owns it, he decided on the history of the world and the relevancy of its characters within. Claiming that he should examine other racial groups in some pc attempt to be all inclusive is ridiculous posturing, because he doesn't readily deal with those groups. He does deal with the women, and he sets all of them down the same path. That, to me, is just lazy and boring.[/quote]

He does deal with different racial groups, its a holy crusade. I think he does do the race stuff in a dull way thought, just look at the boring old carbon copy Fanim and the cut and paste barbarians. Thats lazy and boring, if you have a hang up about lazy then it should be about that of all things.

He was certainly looking at the role of women in this culture and he chose to look at it from a certain angle that I found pretty interesting myself, and far from boring. I also didn't find any of the women to be particularly similar, maybe I have less hang ups about sex though. How dare bakker look at it from that angle and not from a powerful Arabian queen, sexist prick. He should have written the book how you wanted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1674630' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.00']Well no, I was saying that other people seem to be saying Bakker was doing it. But they're not saying it merely because he has a sexist setting. It seems to me the crux of the disagreement is:

""Although I think I'm on board with Eloisa. It'd be one thing if it were exceptional. As it is, it seems to be par for the course for the genre. Even if he is fucking with things deliberately.""

And you said that you don't think genre context should matter, that authors are not responsible for taking the historical conventions of the genre into consideration. Max also said that authors cannot divorce themselves from subtext.[/quote]

You seemed to be endorsing the point of view of those that thought that so I lumped you in with them. As for Max's comment I actually don't see this book as par for the course for the genre.

And yes, an author shouldn't have to take the historical context of a genre into consideration, although doing so might make a more interesting story (in this case it has). They can if they want of course but they can use their story to advance whatever idea they choose, as nasty or nice as it may be. Abercrombie is probably an even better recent example.

Yes a lot of the genre is sexist, from my shallow dip in the ocean of text out there it seems to have been far more sexist in the past than right now. The books that challenge that in an interesting way are great, take one of my favorites, Mary Gentles Sundial in a Grave for example. Those that clumsily whack in cliched character from persecuted group X Y or Z for appearances are not. Thank god the genre is moving away from that though.

All that said there is sometimes a guilty pleasure in reading something quite wrong, take the Sax Rohmer books and Dr. Fu Manchu for example. Hooray for diversity.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1674630' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.00']Okay, I really honestly didn't think that it made sense and it seemed you were handwaving it away, but this is nothing we have to belabor.[/quote]

It didn't make sense, I agree.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1674630' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.00']Well, but that's the thing, asking for a black captain shouldn't be seen as saying that what the show [i]had[/i] achieved before wasn't appreciated. If you object to further complaints then you're basically saying that people should be content with partial gains. The reason the state of things progressed beyond those times is precisely because people complained. It's part of the feedback process, it seems shortsighted to dismiss it as bitching.[/quote]

Of course it is, people often seem pretty eager to jump on the negative bandwagon with things like that though. Admittedly I kind of baited you to do so but it does cause a bit of an eye roll when someone complains about something from years ago. Maybe it shouldn't but in a thread full of PC its more likely to do so, Im going to stop using PC as a dirty word now before I sound like fox news.

Anyway, this was all tied up to the people have a right to complain and in turn influence and change popular media to be something a bit less sexist/racists/amputeeist. Which is true, look how far we've come through just this after all.

Sometimes to make progress though a bit of well put together wrongness can go a long way. Yes it can be taken out of context, look at films like Romper Stomper, Once were Warriors, Baise-Moi, mysterious skin and irreversible for ample controversy. All tread a fine line but do so well, better than something more PC and mainstream like 'crash'. In respect to this series of books Im putting it in the fromer category, not the latter. Yes it's gotten the hackles of some up, but I think they have the intent of the text wrong. Some might say its the authors failure, some the readers.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1674630' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.00']Okay, you mean in a gender framework then. I think there is more to say from a general perspective here but I should let the rest of you take this one from here I think.[/quote]

You really shouldn't, I think the general perspectives on the genre are useful . It just helps if you make it clear that your statements aren't about Bakkers series specifically. I know that given thats what everyone is talking about its hard not to use others opinions on a series you haven't read for examples, but half the argument is that these opinions are flat out wrong so inevitably your propensity (albeit maybe just perceived by me) to consciously/unconsciously endorse the bakkers book is inherently derogatory to women camp grates a bit.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1674630' date='Feb 5 2009, 18.00']When talking about general genre stuff I was addressing Shryke's comments on tokenism, by the way.[/quote]

Gotcha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1675264' date='Feb 5 2009, 20.20']IIRC, he did mention in some interview he purposefully set out to create an unpleasant world to show that not everything in pre-modern societies was fine and dandy. If true, Earwa is supposed to be a polemic with your traditional sugar-coated fantasy world and as such it does work for me (although evidently not for everybody)[/quote]

The problem is that he isn't giving an accurate portrayal of the medieval world. Now, if it's a polemic against a *fantasy world* as opposed to *historical reality* that's a different matter, but he's sending mixed messages on this one.

(If you wanted to write a story about how horrible the middle-ages were for women, you should first find out how they actually worked)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't Bakker said that with Eärwa he set out to create a world where women were metaphysically inferior to men? That many of the religious stigmas regarding women are actually true when it comes to how they interact with the Outside? So Eärwa is designed to be worse than reality.

I kind of agree that the depiction of women are a bit one-note though. I don't really have a problem with the women who are in the books, but I think it would have added greatly to our understanding of the world and its treatment if we had seen how an ordinary farmer's och merchant's wife would have lived. Perhaps he is saving that stuff for his later books (I haven't read TJE yet), but I think it shows that PoN isn't that well balanced as a series.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triskele' post='1676176' date='Feb 6 2009, 01.29']Let me ask a question: At worst, is Bakker a blatent sexist? I can't see how anyone would say that. Perhaps at a stretch he's a latent sexist but does anyone actually think he set out to prove some sexist point? If not, what's the problem?[/quote]

The notion that unintended and subconscious--latent--sexism is much more acceptable than overt sexism is problematic. In some ways latent and subtextual sexism (or racism, or whatever) worries me more than blatant prejudice does. When it's blatant it can be easily dismissed and, in general, people will go along with the dismissal and condemnation. When it isn't...well, I think far more people would argue that Hollywood isn't particularly sexist in its treatment of female characters than would argue that women are objectively inferior to men. Which is a problem.

Hell, look at the folks asserting that since Obama is president, we can't talk about racism anymore. If it isn't obvious, then to many it doesn't exist. It's difficult to correct a problem when lots of folks refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Er. So, in short: subtext matters (just as? nearly as? More?) much as text text does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triskele' post='1676176' date='Feb 6 2009, 10.29']Galactus - Not attacking your post but I want to challenge something implied...Do we know that Bakker was actually attempting to write a story about how horrible the middle-ages for women were?[/quote]

That was the implication I got from his statements, yes.
[quote]I do believe he was trying to write a story about a nasty world that reflects human history...I don't know that how he viewed women was instrumental in his approach. What I'm trying to say is that his depiction of his female roles can be defended indirectly...why are we roasting him over the fire over his depiction of women? I don't think a "depiction of women" was his goal while writing the series. So I don't feel like it deserves this level of criticism.[/quote]

Why SHOULDN'T we? If anything, don't we have a positive duty to analyze and screen all sorts of things? It's actually the lack f thought (seemingly, it's possible he DOES have a point and that it'll be resolved later on, so my judgement thus far is provisional and not final)

Bakker is writing a story of a very nasty world, true. The point though is that this strikes in very different ways towards men and women (mind, I haven't read TJE yet, so my judgement is thus far based only on the first trilogy) men occupy all kinds of positions, have all kinds of identities, thoughts and ideas, they have a pretty broad range of personalities.

Women in Bakkerworld largely don't: They're connected to sex in a way that men are not. (not that men don't have this connection, it's a part of the didactic that Bakker IS doing and that is quite interesting) but they also have... well, other stuff. His women by and large don't. This might be something he intends to engage with and talk about: If he does, then whether or not this problem is resolved or not will depend on what he has to say about it. If it is not engaged with, then you'd have to conclude that it is an unthinking reflex and mirroring of the sexism of our culture at large.

[quote]And while I'm on that note, I wonder sometimes if he isn't simply suffering from his own success. Bakker is one of the hottest new authors in the genre no? So he's getting extra scrutiny. I don't read enough of the genre to know how stereotypical these tropes are in actuality but for fuck's sake, it's just a fantasy novel...I just don't see all the fuss.

Let me ask a question: At worst, is Bakker a blatent sexist? I can't see how anyone would say that. Perhaps at a stretch he's a latent sexist but does anyone actually think he set out to prove some sexist point? If not, what's the problem?[/quote]

I don't think Bakker is consciously trying to prove a sexist point, but I'm not certain he has thought his word through as much as he perhaps should have. (he's not alone in this, of course) but the entire POINT about sexism (and racism) is that you DON'T have to be out to prove something personally to reinforce it. (There is also the more personal problem that reading a sexist or racist text, even if the author is not out to deliberately make a sexist or racist point, is deeply uncomfortable)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Hasn't Bakker said that with Eärwa he set out to create a world where women were metaphysically inferior to men? That many of the religious stigmas regarding women are actually true when it comes to how they interact with the Outside? So E�rwa is designed to be worse than reality.[/quote]

I just have to question what the point of that would be? And what difference it would be to write a book about Race A being metaphysically inferior to Race B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he said that he wanted to explore how a world would look like if it really worked the way many religions think it does. I'm not sure it's a that great an idea though; would it be any difference between a world where you actually would go to hell for doing certain things and one where everyone just think you would?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triskele' post='1676176' date='Feb 6 2009, 09.29']Let me ask a question: At worst, is Bakker a blatent sexist? I can't see how anyone would say that. Perhaps at a stretch he's a latent sexist but does anyone actually think he set out to prove some sexist point? If not, what's the problem?[/quote]

Why *wouldn't* we point this out? If Bakker is not a blatant sexist (which I'm pretty sure he's not) but is still unconsciously adding sexist themes to his books, then it's sensible to let him know where he's going wrong*. From his interviews, he's stated that he's trying to explore female archetypes, discrimination etc and [i]just can't understand[/i] why people are calling him sexist when he's trying so hard to [s]avoid[/s] problematise it; surely he'd appreciate some input from those of us who experience sexism at the pointy end, letting him know what is or isn't working? His responses to criticism do bug me quite a lot though, as they tend to be along the lines of "Of COURSE I'm not a sexist, you just don't get it!!" when it's quite clearly a lot more complicated than that.

Unconscious sexism is not a get-out clause, especially if you then refuse to analyse why some people might be calling you sexist. Let's face it, EVERYONE is a little bit sexist (yes, that includes me) and it's only by examining your unconscious prejudices that you stand any chance of fixing them. Baldly claiming that there isn't a problem does not help anyone.

*and, by extension, other writers, fans, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...