Jump to content

Bakker and Women


Maia

Recommended Posts

[quote]You've read TJE. So you don't agree that Bakkker has given you just what you asked for ?[/quote]Not really, no. If anything it's worse.

And if you really want I'll spoil that last part, but it didn't seem particularly spoilery. If it's any consolation, it's a throwaway line in a forgettable chapter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILER: TJE
[quote name='Shryke' post='1677457' date='Feb 6 2009, 15.23']Kellhus trusted her with alot of power because she's afraid of losing that power? That doesn't even make sense.[/quote]Talk to Kellhus about it then. That's what Maith's conclusion was.





[quote]So what? Kellhus doesn't care about pretty much anyone.[/quote]
It's important because none of the males are used the same way. If you're claiming that Esmi was important because of her intelligence, it's important to note why that intelligence was important. It wasn't because she could lead men or be awesome; it's because her babies would be smart. Again, she's defined by her ability to fuck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

There's a difference between wanting more women for the sake of wanting more women (which is tokenism, I suppose), and wanting more women for the sake of doing a better job at putting across whatever particular didactic or polemic goals you have. I am saying that I think Bakker has to some degree [i]undermined his goals[/i], and I've said why, and I've pointed out ways he could have addressed it.

It has nothing to do with feminism, or quotas, or making anyone feel good. It's purely to do with what Scott said in that interview that he wanted to do, and the many people who are pointing out, one way or another, that he hasn't succeeded for them for reasons x, y, and z. For the most part, I find this "discussion" highly frustrating because it's largely not one. It's a lot of people dismissing any critique as a call for "tokenism".

What arguments Bakker has engendered are, for the most part, bad ones -- they aren't engaging the text equally. And, IMO, it has everything to do with knee-jerk "Tokenism!" shouts, dismissing the critiques of the text instead of engaging with the text itself to resolve the differences.

And the funny thing is of all this is:

1) I've said, and maintain, that I don't really think Bakker needs to change anything in the series. I think he missed an opportunity to make his problematization more interesting.

2) I've also said that Matrim's argument as to the whys of it largely addresses my concern, moving it from, "Big mistake," to "Missed opportunity". I appreciate his contribution, so it's not like the whole thing has been a waste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate doing big things in spoilers because it really tends to derail the conversation.
SPOILER: TJE
Esmi is still entirely defined by her being the mom of Kellhus' kids - and she was put into power while Kellhus was away because he sees her fear as a strength when ruling. And when trying to deal with the cultist, she can't do a damn thing until Kellhus appears to save the day.

Mimara is an ex-whore, and gets through to Akka by fucking him. She constantly thinks about the world as basically something that uses her like a whore.

The last, Nannaferi (and shockingly no umlauts) is defined by being the fertile mother figure. Her big moment in the book is fucking a guy while she's menstruating and smearing her blood and the guy's semen on people. The secondary book is her killing someone in a menstrual red smear of blood and darkness. She's worse than the whole lot; her whole power is defined entirely from her sex, as is the cult's true power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important for our understanding of Istriya to notice that we have actually never seen the real Istriya before she got replaced by a skin-spy. In my reread the signs of that were clear and numerous. Among other things, Xerius notices several times how clumsy his mother's manipulations have suddenly become and thinks she's going senile. There is also one scene where the skin-spy is surprised, and Xerius thinks that her mother should have known about that, since her network of spies should be as extensive as his own.

The real Istriya would have been far more formidable that the shell we saw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side not, im reading Ericksons Malazan Book of the Fallen, second book. Harsh world, quick deaths.
Not alot of female characters, but they seem pretty wide spread in terms of who they are. So far only one that has used sex to gain anything, and she's currently in a slave pit, so i can understand.

Funny how an author can take a brutal world but still not adhere to certain tired cliches about women in medieval society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Esmenet, Serwë, and Mimara (just to name the three being cited most often here) would define themselves in relation to the world around them. Is the sex/whoring viewed by them as a necessary way of making their own way through difficult situations, or is it the Alpha and the Omega of their understanding of themselves?

Having read Judith Walkowitz's [i]City of Dreadful Delights[/i] several years ago and having to critique it in front of my grad class, I suspect some here are taking very absolutist stances here on gender roles/sexual self-identifications, which of course is quite ironic considering Bakker's comments about certainties...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the ellipsis makes you sound far more profound, especially when not actually explaining anything...

Esmi's defined herself multiple times throughout all the books as a whore.
SPOILER: TJE
So does Mimara
. We don't get internal dialog from Serwe, but considering that she gives herself to another man and only views her talents as being beautiful (in a talk with Esmi), I don't think that's that far behind.

Istriya of course would just grip her phallus with great longing, so that's not so helpful.

It's not really the point of what the characters would say, given that they're all pre-Kellhusian enlightened and are completely bound with What Comes Before. And it's really not the point given that it's Bakker's predilections that are at issue here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, just for the record, I don't think "The world was created to be a sexist place" NECCESSARILY gets Bakker off the hook: If anything that leads you to ask the question "And why did you create it like that?"

Bakker has some answers, I don't think they are (yet) particularly convincing, but as said, the series isn't done yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677507' date='Feb 6 2009, 15.48']I hate doing big things in spoilers because it really tends to derail the conversation.[/quote]

It's appreciated, stud. No, really.

[quote]Okay, just for the record, I don't think "The world was created to be a sexist place" NECCESSARILY gets Bakker off the hook: If anything that leads you to ask the question "And why did you create it like that?"[/quote]
Bakker doesn't seem to either. He [i]does[/i] seem to think that if the work provides enough grist to argue the point of its sexist nature, it's necessarily defensible. Which strikes me as a weird argument to see coming from a philosophy professor. Pick a piece of entertainment you think is blatantly sexist. Chances are you can find someone willing to argue the point. And how exactly do we determine wtf enough grist to argue the point is, anyway?

His defense there struck me as meaningless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677535' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.12']I understand the ellipsis makes you sound far more profound, especially when not actually explaining anything...

Esmi's defined herself multiple times throughout all the books as a whore.
SPOILER: TJE
So does Mimara
. We don't get internal dialog from Serwe, but considering that she gives herself to another man and only views her talents as being beautiful (in a talk with Esmi), I don't think that's that far behind.

Istriya of course would just grip her phallus with great longing, so that's not so helpful.

It's not really the point of what the characters would say, given that they're all pre-Kellhusian enlightened and are completely bound with What Comes Before. And it's really not the point given that it's Bakker's predilections that are at issue here.[/quote]

The best pedagogical methods rely upon the students filling in the gaps, not the teacher explicating everything, so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining every single bit. Thing is, I disagree with you your interpretations of the characters and the story. I think you've come close, if not crossed the line, to confusing valid interpretation with certainty. Having read TJE,
SPOILER: TJE
I would counter by noting that Esmenet defines herself much more these days by her roles as mother and as unwilling leader than by her vagina and its uses. That Mimara defines herself by her confused feelings for her mother, her desire to know, which is what leads her to camp outside Akka's place for several days. That Serwë, if she had a PoV in the PoN novels, likely would have emphasized much more her innocence - considering her few comments often relate to her childhood - and her sometimes misplaced but rather strong care for the concerns of others.


But considering that it is [i]precisely the point[/i] of seeing how these women are characterized that is the issue here, are you going to dimiss their PoVs as blithely as some tend to dismiss the recorded comments of women in X professions when trying to argue gender roles for any historical society?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1677560' date='Feb 6 2009, 16.31']The best pedagogical methods rely upon the students filling in the gaps, not the teacher explicating everything, so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining every single bit.[/quote]

Bwah!

:rofl:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan,

You should rephrase that bit about students and teachers. It has nothing at all to do with the context of this discussion, and it can easily be misconstrued. We're none of us in a position to claim that one person is a teacher and the rest students. I'm sure that's not your intention, but in any case, that reading of what you wrote loomed large for me.

Back on the topic, I'm looking forward to reading TJE eventually, and I'll be paying closer attention to the gender issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The best pedagogical methods rely upon the students filling in the gaps, not the teacher explicating everything, so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining every single bit. Thing is, I disagree with you your interpretations of the characters and the story. I think you've come close, if not crossed the line, to confusing valid interpretation with certainty. Having read TJE,[/quote]Ooh, you're my teacher now? Maybe if you didn't approach everyone as talking down to them like you were in your classroom it might be easier to hold a discourse with you.

But that's okay. We can just completely destroy your argument instead.
SPOILER: TJE
Esmi throughout TJE refers to herself as the ex-whore and thinks about what she was like - and how her life has changed thanks to Kellhus. Mimara refers to herself as a whore and specifically thinks in situations with that analogy in mind; she even compares it with Esmi and how she didn't want to get used like a whore by Esmi again.


But instead of what they would say - which you have literally no idea about - we can actually look at what they [i]do[/i] say. I'm not dismissing their PoVs; I'm dismissing your fanwank notion of what their PoVs would be if they went up on Inside the Actor's Studio and started talking with us. Their PoVs are pretty clear, and there are plenty of examples for all of them that illustrate what they're thinking. Well, except for Istriya directly; all we have is the skin spy to tell us how they think.

As an example: how many times does Esmi in the first three books refer to herself as a whore? How many times does she say something similar to 'once a whore, always a whore'? How many times does she analyze men as a whore does, or mention how being a whore lets her see men differently?

SPOILER: TJE
And in TJE, how much of her character is involved in being a mother? Again, a role [i]defined by her sex[/i].


Or we can write fanfic about how Serwe was innocence and light while banging her best friend's man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1677501' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.43']Shryke,

There's a difference between wanting more women for the sake of wanting more women (which is tokenism, I suppose), and wanting more women for the sake of doing a better job at putting across whatever particular didactic or polemic goals you have. I am saying that I think Bakker has to some degree [i]undermined his goals[/i], and I've said why, and I've pointed out ways he could have addressed it.

It has nothing to do with feminism, or quotas, or making anyone feel good. It's purely to do with what Scott said in that interview that he wanted to do, and the many people who are pointing out, one way or another, that he hasn't succeeded for them for reasons x, y, and z. For the most part, I find this "discussion" highly frustrating because it's largely not one. It's a lot of people dismissing any critique as a call for "tokenism".

What arguments Bakker has engendered are, for the most part, bad ones -- they aren't engaging the text equally. And, IMO, it has everything to do with knee-jerk "Tokenism!" shouts, dismissing the critiques of the text instead of engaging with the text itself to resolve the differences.

And the funny thing is of all this is:

1) I've said, and maintain, that I don't really think Bakker needs to change anything in the series. I think he missed an opportunity to make his problematization more interesting.

2) I've also said that Matrim's argument as to the whys of it largely addresses my concern, moving it from, "Big mistake," to "Missed opportunity". I appreciate his contribution, so it's not like the whole thing has been a waste.[/quote]

I think "Missed Opportunity" is a much much better way of putting it.

My problem is that "Big Mistake" implies something that should be corrected. In this case, by throwing in more characters of whatever type in order to meet the quotas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1677541' date='Feb 6 2009, 19.15']Okay, just for the record, I don't think "The world was created to be a sexist place" NECCESSARILY gets Bakker off the hook: If anything that leads you to ask the question "And why did you create it like that?"

Bakker has some answers, I don't think they are (yet) particularly convincing, but as said, the series isn't done yet.[/quote]

Why did he create his fake world to be sexist?

Because the real one is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does Bakker have aliens, teleportation, skin changers and shapeshifters in his books? Because the real world does.

No wait, it doesnt. I find an insistence on correspondence with the real world in a setting that has fantastical elements to be a tad ludicrous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677412' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.00']Except she only gets what she wants by fucking Kellhus and having his kids, and the only reason he wants her is because she'll hopefully produce good babies.

Other than that oversight, I agree.[/quote]What oversight? She doesn't seduce him or use her sex charm to get what she wanted from him. Although she was manipulated, she still went to him willingly. It sounds as if you are saying that in order for a woman to get the husband that she wanted, then she must fuck him and have his kids, both of which the wife happened to want anyway. Therefore, the wife is defined by her use of sex to get what she wants. Also her power is defined by her relationship with her husband. Well, isn't that kind of how it worked in many pre-feminist societies anyway? Isn't that also true for Catelyn, Lysa Tully, Cersei, etc.? Is their power not derived from their (ex-)relationships with their husbands or fathers?

If Kellhus only wants her to breed superbabies, then he is not using her for sex, though he is using her sex and relying on her valued genes to produce suitable children. Then again, if Akka had a vagina, Kellhus would probably have seduced him too. People are means for Kellhus and not ends.
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...