Bakker and Women

[Nerdanel]

Considering that Eärwa has its origins in a roleplaying setting, I find it entirely possible that the true reason behind women's inferiority is that they simply on average [i]have lower levels in their chosen character classes[/i]. A little adventuring from enough women would fix that (either you level up or you die - either way the average goes up), but the culture doesn't allow for that and so the situation perpetuates itself.

:P

[Ran]

That's so nerdy that it's probably true!

[AverageGuy]

[quote name='Finn' post='1679198' date='Feb 8 2009, 17.26']Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"? Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority? In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"? Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?[/quote]
The latter. Either. Both. I doubt Bakker's thought it out that far, but he has said that there's an objective morality imposed by the Outside, so along those lines, I'd say they could both apply. A nebulous metaphysical principle that somehow matters to the numinal. As far as we know, it is such a broad rule that it applies even to good women when compared to bad men.

[Sheep the Evicted]

If Bakker was setting out to portray the spiritual inferiority of women then he flopped quite drastically; i don't think its too much of a spoiler to say that the spiritual leaders in the biggest religious cult in Earwa HAVE to be women.

Or maybe he did but Kellhus changed it all by rewriting the Tusk.

What the hell does Spiritual Inferiority even mean ?

That your less charismatic ? Less aggressive/assertive ? More likely to go to hell ?

[Kat]

I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't [i]that[/i] show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...[i]what[/i] PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Ran' post='1678779' date='Feb 8 2009, 10.33']Well, he's going further than that, it seems to me, due to the particular philosophical ideas he wants to explore. He wants to make "concrete" an abstraction -- he wants to turn belief into objective, fundamental reality.[/quote]


[quote name='Kat' post='1679602' date='Feb 9 2009, 07.23']I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't [i]that[/i] show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...[i]what[/i] PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:[/quote]

I don't think it only regards gender, it also regards a lot of his portrayal of other cultures. I started to like the books a bit less, when I realised that the Nansur Empire would really be like the worst stereotypes that existed of Byzantium and worse. And that's why Istyria as a character concept irritates me more than the other female characters (Esme and Serwe), because she is like the incarnation of "greek decadence and vice".

And I do think that the books are some kind of verbal masturbation, which seems the same as fighting a literary strawman with many, many words. That said, I didn't hate them, but I also don't think that they are the best and deepest books ever.

[Galactus]

[quote name='Finn' post='1679198' date='Feb 8 2009, 23.26']Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"? Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority? In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"? Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?

The example of sorcerers is interesting because we know that they are supposed to be damned, but there is never any indication that sorcerers are more or less moral or ethical than anyone else. In fact, Akka might be the most ethical character we've met in Earwa.[/quote]

SPOILER: TJE

We do get a confirmmation in TJE (yes, I read it yesterday) Mimara's Judging Eye sees women as inferior to men (and less holy) like snakes are holy but pigs are unclean. (and sorcerers are outright damned)

[Galactus]

[quote]About 50%. And also a terrible example: mother vs. whore?!?!? Why not complain that the other 50% is involved in being an Empress, and of course only a female can be an Empress? I think the right complaint is that she is out of her depth as an Empress and a petty despot. Basically she was a smart whore but no more. You can dress her up but . . .[/quote]

Whore, daughter, mother, crone are pretty much the "traditional" gender-roles. (sometimes combined in various ways) The point is that these are all related to sexuality in a way that male gender-roles by and large are not. (because male is the default, and so forth and so on, we all know that)

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

[quote name='Kat' post='1679602' date='Feb 9 2009, 07.23']I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't [i]that[/i] show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...[i]what[/i] PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:[/quote]
I don't think this is what Bakker set out to do. In interviews and articles Bakker has talked about how he see the epic fantasy genre. He's mentioned that one of the central aspects of a fantasy world is that it is anthropomorphic and has a built in morality and that this may be the thing that most effectively draws people to the genre, since this way of looking at the world comes natural to people. He is therefor, as I see it, saying that there is a problem with an uncritical, escapist reading of epic fantasy, since there really isn't any reason to expect a world with a built in morality to be moral in a way that is palatable to modern sensibilities and that it is problematic that almost all fantasy worlds that we come across are.

With Eärwa he seems to have wanted to create a fantasy world that is not morally acceptable to most readers. The whole spiritual inferiority of women thing is just one part of this, but it doesn't seem to really have been something that he focused on in the first trilogy so maybe he will deal with it in more detail in future books (including TJE, which I haven't read yet).

To what extent this is profound or not can of course be discussed, but it seems to me atleast to be somewhat more original than pointing out once more that it can suck to be a woman. That has been done many times before, and been done better.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kat' post='1679602' date='Feb 9 2009, 01.23']I mean...[i]what[/i] PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:[/quote]

I think your defining that far too narrowly.

I mean, for one easy example, any time you see a princess pinning about how she'd rather marry soemone she loved then someone her parents choose, your hitting PC worldbuidling.

I mean, PC might not be the best term here. It's more ... it's more about the characters and setting and such conforming to our modern moral expectations.

[Ran]

Possibly. Troubadors and the culture of courtly love, 14th century Europe, OTOH, say differently. It really depends on the author and what they're calquing from.

ETA: Wrote that without seeing the ETA. Basically we're in agreement. An author who choses to emphasize aspects of courtly love in their setting may be doing so because it adheres (or seems to adhere) more to modern expectations. Mind you, the whole courtly love thing is a complex and interesting subject, and it's not as clear cut as a superficial understanding makes it out to be.

[Galactus]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1679726' date='Feb 9 2009, 11.47']I mean, for one easy example, any time you see a princess pinning about how she'd rather marry soemone she loved then someone her parents choose, your hitting PC worldbuidling.[/quote]

Except that people often did complain. We actually have lots of examples, historically. In medieval culture at large marriage was supposed to be, if not about love so at least about mutual consent and approval.

[Arthmail]

It sounds like Bakker is in some posession of morale clarity.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1679630' date='Feb 9 2009, 08.16']I don't think it only regards gender, it also regards a lot of his portrayal of other cultures. I started to like the books a bit less, when I realised that the Nansur Empire would really be like the worst stereotypes that existed of Byzantium and worse. And that's why Istyria as a character concept irritates me more than the other female characters (Esme and Serwe), because she is like the incarnation of "greek decadence and vice".[/quote]


This is really quite common in fantasy. Martin is equally guilty in this regard. Iron Islander are nothing but collections of cliches about Vikings, Dothraki are stereotyped portrait of stepoe nomads (as are Scylvendi, of course), and Summer Islander of happy, frolicking Southern Seas islanders.
In this particular department Erikson decidedly beats both Bakker and Martin, IMHO.

[quote name='firqorescu' post='1679722' date='Feb 9 2009, 11.37']I don't think this is what Bakker set out to do. In interviews and articles Bakker has talked about how he see the epic fantasy genre. He's mentioned that one of the central aspects of a fantasy world is that it is anthropomorphic and has a built in morality and that this may be the thing that most effectively draws people to the genre, since this way of looking at the world comes natural to people. He is therefor, as I see it, saying that there is a problem with an uncritical, escapist reading of epic fantasy, since there really isn't any reason to expect a world with a built in morality to be moral in a way that is palatable to modern sensibilities and that it is problematic that almost all fantasy worlds that we come across are.

With Eärwa he seems to have wanted to create a fantasy world that is not morally acceptable to most readers. The whole spiritual inferiority of women thing is just one part of this, but it doesn't seem to really have been something that he focused on in the first trilogy so maybe he will deal with it in more detail in future books (including TJE, which I haven't read yet).

To what extent this is profound or not can of course be discussed, but it seems to me atleast to be somewhat more original than pointing out once more that it can suck to be a woman. That has been done many times before, and been done better.[/quote]


Yep, that is how I read this as well. To put it shortly: What if there actually were a God, and His take on morality would be abhorrent to us? Quite profound question, IMHO

[Kalbear]

[quote]Yep, that is how I read this as well. To put it shortly: What if there actually were a God, and His take on morality would be abhorrent to us? Quite profound question, IMHO[/quote]I don't know how profound it is. It's not all that profound to me, at least. This sounds a lot like the kind of question my son asks me.

Him:"What if the soldiers shot lasers that cut through walls?"
Me:"Err...what if?"
Him:"Wouldn't that be cool?"

Bakker:"What if there was a fantasy world where women were objectively worse than men because their objective god existed?"
Me:"Err...what if?"
Bakker: "wouldn't that suck for women?"

For me, this basically feels like I'm now reading about Thomas Covenant, except instead of one horribly flawed character that I hate but is compelling, I'm now reading about a whole world that I find very compelling but want to burn. It'd be more compelling if the morality of the world itself was abhorrent to the characters, but it's not. They all go along with it (save Kellhus, but he's a liar). The only one that it's abhorrent to is the reader, and making misogynistic shit up that makes the reader want to retch isn't really anything new or original, save that most authors don't have the explicit goal to do so and the cojones to justify why they're doing it as some exploration into morality.

Still doesn't explain why the same shit comes up in Neuropath.

In any case, this tears it. I'm rooting for the Consult.

[Finn]

I think we may be overreacting to a quote that isn't all that clear to begin with.

It still isn't clear to me, for instance, that women are morally (as opposed to "spiritually") inferior to men. As others have pointed out, there is no evidence of this from the series itself. I haven't read TJE yet, but the bit that Galactus quoted about Mimara and the judging eye doesn't really clarify matters. It just repeats the "spiritually inferior" thing without letting us know what this means.

Here's a scenario that gives Bakker the benefit of the doubt (warning: fanwanking ahead) -

Let's assume belief shapes reality in Earwa, as many have suggested. One way to write a feminist critique of a society is to show the ways in which misogyny - especially structural and ideologically entrenched misogyny - creates a social world that is simply unjust.

In our culture, we have a few "myths" that work to "soften" the injustice that the oppressed face. One is the (very, modern, capitalist) idea that the individual can and should overcome societal injustice by pulling him-or-herself up by the bootstraps. The vicious corollary to this is that if you haven't done so, it's your fault. Another (very Christian) myth is that, however much suffering the individual faces in this life, he or she can still look forward to a just afterlife if he or she behaves and doesn't cause trouble. Nietzsche had a few things to say about this.

So . . . what if we imagined a world in which misogyny not only creates hell on earth for women, but creates hell full stop. In other words, the misogynistic ideologies of Earwa create a metaphysical reality in which women are essentially punished for being women (and sorcerers for being sorcerers and Inchoroi for being Inchoroi and so on).

In other words, social oppression doesn't stop at the grave and the people of Earwa (collectively) are culpable for incredible injustice. Is it possible that this nightmare vision is a particularly grim critique of the horrific effects of misogyny?

/end fanwank

[AverageGuy]

[quote name='Finn' post='1680193' date='Feb 9 2009, 13.49']In other words, the misogynistic ideologies of Earwa create a metaphysical reality in which women are essentially punished for being women (and sorcerers for being sorcerers and Inchoroi for being Inchoroi and so on).

In other words, social oppression doesn't stop at the grave and the people of Earwa (collectively) are culpable for incredible injustice.[/quote]
So when you say metaphysical reality, you're talking about the afterlife?

Again, I really don't expect Bakker to ever further clarify the status of women. He put women below men and gave a reason for that, spiritual inferiority; I don't see him giving reasons for that reason, especially given these two quotes from [url="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-r-scott-bakker-interview.html"]his interview[/url] with pat, werthead, and DF:

[quote][b]- Damnation is a recurring topic among the sorcerers. Will we see any of the mechanisms behind the judgments related to this damnation as the series progresses?[/b]

Likely not. The occult and the theological are hopelessly muddled in the real world, so in the interests of realism I intend to keep things the same in Earwa.

...

[b]- There seems to be a a complex relationship between the World and the Outside. What are some of the ways in which the World influences the Gods/Outside and will we see more of a metaphysical exploration of what seems to me to be a symbiotic relationship between the two?[/b]

If I were to give some definitive metaphysical interpretation of the relation between the Outside and the World, as opposed to the hairy, haphazard, contradictory mass of hints and explanations I’ve given, I think I would actually be doing a disservice to Earwa. The bottom line is that no one really knows...[/quote]

I figure women will get the same indefinite treatment. "Spiritual" and "holy" are copout words that only have any sort of meaning when compared with words like "damned." "Less holy" or "spiritually superior?" Fuzzy language. Seeming precise while being imprecise. I believe that at best, as others have speculated, we'll get some sort of circular deterministic explanation: the world affects the Outside affects the world, therefore women are inferior because they're perceived as inferior. If that happened, it would make me wonder how women got there in the first place, but hey, let's not look too critically.

[Kalbear]

[quote]In other words, social oppression doesn't stop at the grave and the people of Earwa (collectively) are culpable for incredible injustice. Is it possible that this nightmare vision is a particularly grim critique of the horrific effects of misogyny?[/quote]Like I said, go Consult! Choose Consult!

[Ran]

It's not exactly like the "race of lovers" and their Consult pals are going to be much better.

The more I think of it, the more I think there really isn't any side to root for. Humanity is screwed, whichever way things go.

[Kalbear]

They're not going to be better but at least they're not sexist asshats, and all they're looking to do is die and not go to hell. If that means wiping out the human race on Earwa I'm okay with that.