Jump to content

Bakker and Women II


Mackaxx

Recommended Posts

I swear there were female religious orders mentioned. There's some Cults in the Thousand Temples that are for women, aren't there? If not explicitly mentioned, it's never said that there ISN'T either, at least as far as I remember.

There don't seem to be any women as heads of state, at least from the Nations that are talked about in detail. Though it's never mentioned whether this is just a fact of the time (there are no queens at the time) or whether it's part of the culture of the Three Seas.

And lack of wives didn't seem a notable absence to me. It's neither here nor there to me. If they had been there, I wouldn't have batted an eye either.

[quote]Very few of the people in the book talk about women. About wives, families, [b]anything[/b].[/quote]

This is the key word. It's not "They don't talk about women". It's "They don't talk about ANYTHING personal". These aren't guys who sit around talking about their feelings and their families and their lives back home. At least, not in any of the conversations we follow.

The book is VERY focused in many ways. It doesn't cover small talk or anything of the like. It only focuses in on important events. Times where reminiscing about your sister are not on the top of anyone's list of priorities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The book is VERY focused in many ways. It doesn't cover small talk or anything of the like. It only focuses in on important events. Times where reminiscing about your sister are not on the top of anyone's list of priorities.[/quote]There's actually a lot of navelgazing about people's dads in the book (when Kellhus talks to them during TWP, for example). And a lot of talk about their feelings. Women don't end up coming up.

I'm really leaning towards a 75/25 man woman split in Earwa. That's a way better rationalization than anything else I've seen so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]And that's just one bit of the argument, really. The worse part for me personally isn't the lack of women in a war setting, it's the representation of the women that do exist. That there are none outside of those three makes their stereotypical behavior magnified by omission of counterexamples. Esmi, Serwe and Istriya are the only women that exist in Earwa as far as the text is concerned, and that says something.

But what does it actually say? That's the problem I have. I don't get a reason for it.[/quote]

This is a separate point and, imo, far more open for debate.

It is, to some extent, simply yet another function of the book and the fact that the focus of it simply won't include many women.

Serwe and Esmenet are what they are because it works in the story and helps support the themes and the plot and so on. And hell, the Empress too actually, to a certain extent. (While she didn't actually have to be this creepily sexual, it does work well in the story since it bridges the gap between her as a human and her as a skin-spy. It means it's harder to notice when she gets replaced.)

Besides that, Bakker did say he deliberately modeled them after certain female archetypes in fiction, but most of the males are the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1685887' date='Feb 13 2009, 13.57']There's actually a lot of navelgazing about people's dads in the book (when Kellhus talks to them during TWP, for example). And a lot of talk about their feelings. Women don't end up coming up.[/quote]

?? There's some stuff about fathers, but I wouldn't call it "alot".

And it's mostly there to sort of highlight Kellhus' "struggle" with his father.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1685562' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.56']I have lots of women in my book, because the ruling culture and a few of the clannish and tribes are matriarchal. But I'm going for an almost prehistoric sense of pre-society, somewhat. This is my choice. I suppose I'm going to be getting a lot of flak from the skewed views of the misogynists.

[rolls eyes]

Seriously.

I feel bad for Scott right now, I think he's getting the wrong end of a lot of personal bias.[/quote]

That is a non-argument and rather arrogant to boot. If you want to be an author, indeed, then we do not have a problem, as no one will ever know. If you want to be a published author you [i]knowingly[/i] expose yourself to scrutiny and criticism. To casually label the opinions from a significant number of readers in this thread as "personal bias" when the majority of them have put forth clear and concise points of view, with a minimum of classic internet slagging - whilst many of said readers admit at the same time they have enjoyed the books for various other reasons, smacks of a disdain towards an audience unworthy of any (upcoming) author.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1685895' date='Feb 13 2009, 20.00']?? There's some stuff about fathers, but I wouldn't call it "alot".

And it's mostly there to sort of highlight Kellhus' "struggle" with his father.[/quote]


I would say that relationshir between Esmenet and Mimara is far more important in the books that any father/son relationship with only possible exception of Kellhus and Moenghus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoG,

Maybe if you're including the fourth book? But in the first trilogy, Kellhus and Möenghus's relationship is vastly more important than the relationship between Esmenet and Mimara in the first trilogy. So is Cnäiur's relationship to his (long dead) father.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Min and Cerys,

I suppose instead of 'lots of women,' I should have said the majority of the characters central to the overarching plot are women. PoVs, women in positions powerful over that of men. But I doubt this would've pacified your proclivity to viewing all through the myopic lens of feminism or the chivalric code of the white knights in the stead of historical perspective as it pertains to story driven plots.

Or, I could just bow out of this aspect of the debate as Tears of Lys said it better. I agree with her completely.


Zollo,

There's no disdain. Frustration certainly, because in my opinion I just don't think Bakker's getting the benefit of the doubt here-- it's like a persecution of opinion because of the setting he's chosen to operate the narrative within. The 'against' can bring up all the rationalization they like, and most of it is valid from a certain framework, at a remove mind you, but to not admit that their hackles are partially up because their sensibilities aren't being pandered to by the author is a little dishonest, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1685939' date='Feb 13 2009, 20.26']BoG,

Maybe if you're including the fourth book? But in the first trilogy, Kellhus and Möenghus's relationship is vastly more important than the relationship between Esmenet and Mimara in the first trilogy. So is Cnäiur's relationship to his (long dead) father.[/quote]


I think even if the first trilogy it is more important than Cnaiur's relationship to his father, though admittedly not Kellhus', since the latter was crucial to the plot. Even before TJE Mimara was one of the most important facts about Esmenet. In TJE it is central

SPOILER: TJE
Esmenet is what defines Mimara. That Mimara had been a whore is secondary, betrayal by her mother is what makes her who she is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1685892' date='Feb 13 2009, 11.59']This is a separate point and, imo, far more open for debate.

It is, to some extent, simply yet another function of the book and the fact that the focus of it simply won't include many women.

Serwe and Esmenet are what they are because it works in the story and helps support the themes and the plot and so on. And hell, the Empress too actually, to a certain extent. (While she didn't actually have to be this creepily sexual, it does work well in the story since it bridges the gap between her as a human and her as a skin-spy. [b]It means it's harder to notice when she gets replaced[/b].)

Besides that, Bakker did say he deliberately modeled them after certain female archetypes in fiction, but most of the males are the same.[/quote]

Bold: I'm under the impression that when we first meet her, she's already replaced. Her son notes how different she seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='needle' post='1685780' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.23']Umm..let's not sully the discourse with my personal opinions on whether you are (or are not) a mysognist, eh Jason? :P[/quote]

Why not, could prove amusing in a thread that could us a little [i]fun.[/i] :P


[quote name='needle' post='1685780' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.23']Well, you see, we just don't know, do we? because we don't know any woman from Akka's society that aren't whores. We do not know if Esme was an uncommonly intelligent whore, or an uncommonly intelligent woman, do we? with no comparisons makeable, we have no grounds on which to judge her. Maybe all woman are just as clever as Esme in her home land - Kelhus thinks she's clever, but he's only met her and Serwe, and I think we can agree that Serwe was uncommonly stupid. (or was she? the walk-on-part women seem to be as dumb as Serwe, so maybe the woman in this world are exceptionally stupid and Esme is a total freak. In which case, what is motive behind making a sub-class sex and then putting an intelligent monkey in?)[/quote]

It's true, we [i]don't[/i] know. And this thread's ancestors led me to question it. As you say, women aren't that visible. It's true, but why? We meet few women throughout the series, but in a world where women aren't generally amongst the powers that be, why should we expect to run into them as a matter of course when the plot is hanging from the movements of the powerful?

We know Esmenet is intelligent based off the insightfulness of her observations. We know Serwe, uh, isn't especially. Istraya [sp?] is definitely intelligent, but I'd say it’s more of a coarse, base kind of cunning. These are the three women we're really exposed to in the first trilogy, and there isn't any basis of comparison for them except to each other. We hear a little about the other female slaves Serwe was around in her household, the noble-caste woman who promised her the blue baby, and one of Cnaiur's wives, but that's about it. Not enough of a cross section to draw a baseline, but there's nothing there, imo, that would indicate women in Earwa are unintelligent by nature. Now, 'out of necessity' is an entirely different and arguable beast. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that the men in this world keep their women down by withholding knowledge from them, which curiously enough is something that Esmenet has rarely encountered. Wonder why... :P

Bakker used the Crusades as a template insofar as the plot, at least that's how I read it. When comparing the cultures though, [i]I[/i] find the most accurate comparisons in the ancient world [he mimicked, imo, a lot of Homer's [i]Iliad[/i] for TTT, stylistically anyway] as opposed to the medieval, but as previously stated inthread and the thread beforehand, women didn't have it easy in medieval times either, and by and large, they were predominantly invisible as well. One thing I absolutely agree on though, is that my assumptions haven't been challenged in this regard. I too, am awaiting how Bakker will do as he's proposed.

I understand why it upsets you, and I don't hold it against you. I'm just wondering if we'd even be having this discussion at all if Bakker had allowed women other than those necessary to the plot some more screen time. But then, that's how I've interpreted what he said was deliberate-- that there would be no more than necessary.

It's entirely different in TJE, btw, and it's still as far a cry from conforming for the sake of tokenism as the first trilogy was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]There's no disdain. Frustration certainly, because in my opinion I just don't think Bakker's getting the benefit of the doubt here-- it's like a persecution of opinion because of the setting he's chosen to operate the narrative within.[/quote]What benefit of the doubt is needed here? No one save Ran is saying that he's a sexist prick. Okay, no one save Ran and Bakker himself is saying that.

Most people are wondering why he chose to do what he did, since he's said it's a purposeful choice. Many are stating that as he put out the representations it is a very sexist, misogynistic world and theme - [i]and this is something that the author has said he agrees with and did purposely[/i].

What 'doubt' are we supposed to be having here? Are we supposed to doubt that Bakker's actually telling the truth?

And Jeordhi, you can use the setting to justify the actions in the book, and that's fine; what's being criticised and talked about isn't the actions in the book, it's the setting. Yes, it makes sense in the context of the setting. We all basically agree on that (save Maia perhaps, but that's more of a worldbuilding thing). What isn't making sense to me is [i]why he chose to make his world so much more misogynistic than the real one.[/i]. Why he chose to have women in stereotypical roles explicitly (again, those are [i]his words[/i]). Why his world has women as being objectively worse than men.

Now, you might be thinking that the implication is there that he's a sexist prick, and that we must be reaching that conclusion simply by asking the question. And I'm stating right now: that's not true for me. What I'm genuinely interested in is why he chose to do these things. A secondary consideration is whether or not what he chose ended up succeeding. As an author I would imagine these things would be of huge interest to you.

[quote]Bold: I'm under the impression that when we first meet her, she's already replaced. Her son notes how different she seems.[/quote]He says this later, not initially, IIRC. I'd have to dig out the texts to find out, but I thought it was well into TWP before we get this. It hardly matters; her relationship with her son is clearly sexual and has been so since he was little, so either she was a skin-spy for that entire time or the skin-spy is just continuing the fucked-up relationship she already has. Either point is basically immaterial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1685848' date='Feb 13 2009, 13.23']Really, that is the disconnect. I don't see people changing their mind if they don't have a problem with it, and I can't really see me being talked out of my objections to the series. But without the disconnect there would be no fun thread for us all to post in :P[/quote]

That's pretty much it, I'm afraid. le sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Kal. When I'm talking benefit of the doubt though, I mean he [Bakker] isn't done yet, is all. Give the man some credit. If he were to answer outright, would that take away from what he's driving at? As a [i]human being[/i] I'm interested in these questions, of course. Having read TJE, I think I can say he's furthering that aspect of the story but is certainly not done. I can suspend judgment until then, I just wonder why so many cannot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kuenjato' post='1686065' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.11']Bold: I'm under the impression that when we first meet her, she's already replaced. Her son notes how different she seems.[/quote]

No, he doesn't note that she's "different" till TWP.

After they lose their first spy inside the Emperor's inner circle (at the end of TDTCB), they have the Empress replaced to get another one in place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Now, you might be thinking that the implication is there that he's a sexist prick, and that we must be reaching that conclusion simply by asking the question. And I'm stating right now: that's not true for me. What I'm genuinely interested in is why he chose to do these things. A secondary consideration is whether or not what he chose ended up succeeding[/quote]

Heh. Me too. I really don't think it's an [i][i]unconscious desire for tokenism[/i][/i] that's operating here.

Then again,as the author's talkin' bout camp derridean, the text is no more priveleged than any reading of it. So should his [i][i]intentions[/i][/i] be important in the slightest?

[quote][quote]
I understand why it upsets you, and I don't hold it against you.[/quote][/quote]

Joy. I can rest easy tonight.

However, I'm not fully at the point where I totally understand it myself. I think, after a couple of years of discussions with my partner, I'm [i]closer[/i]..but it is a complicated issue, and that in a sense is a compliment to the author, that I'm willing to spend that much time examining it. So many of his own statements in the last few days, rather than resolving things, have muddied the waters further on authorial intent. Not that, of course, we should solely(or at all) rely on authorial intent in dissecting a work).

Actually, I'm going back to looking at the text on its own merits, without looking for authorial comfort that he's going to make it alright in the end by [i][i]deliberately[/i][/i] invoking debates on sexism. And as Kal stated previously, and what many do not seem to get, is that we are in the business of examining the work, not the man. (Apart from Ran :P)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Having read TJE, I think I can say he's furthering that aspect of the story but is certainly not done. I can suspend judgment until then, I just wonder why so many cannot.[/quote]I don't see the people actually judging anything. That's sort of my point - you're deriding people for not giving Bakker a fair shake and judging him too early - but that's not what anyone's actually saying.

So I ask again - what benefit of the doubt are we supposed to be giving him? What doubt do we have, when the author comes in and says 'yep, I purposely made Earwa horrible, I chose the women I did because I wanted those stereotypes and I made women objectively worse than men'. That was what was in question before, and the author answered it. So there's your answer.

Where's the doubt there? I seriously don't understand your point of view.

Would it take away from the story to know where he was trying to go by explicitly showcasing decade-old female stereotypes? I don't think so.

At this point I have no doubt that Bakker had in mind a specific argument when he chose this world and how he chose this world. Or the women and men in the world. My statement is that so far he's done a particularly bad job actually making that argument, as the methods he has chosen have dovetailed really, really well with decades old misogynistic crap which occludes whatever more subtle point he's making.

Especially since even the most well-reasoned folks who have done careful study of his books have yet to actually, ya know, mention that oh-so-subtle subtext.

I will say that if it was Bakker's intent to write a book where people were very much exposed and shown sexism and misogyny to make them uncomfortable, then he's done a fairly good job of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Yes, it makes sense in the context of the setting. We all basically agree on that (save Maia perhaps, but that's more of a worldbuilding thing). [b]What isn't making sense to me is why he chose to make his world so much more misogynistic than the real one.[/b]. Why he chose to have women in stereotypical roles explicitly (again, those are his words). Why his world has women as being objectively worse than men.[/quote]

Is it? Really?

Ignoring the metaphysical for the moment, their society isn't all that much more sexist then ours was at various points in history. Hell, I'd say it's about the same.

I mean, what evidence is there of their society being way more sexist then our own?

Cause, personally, I saw it as, at worst, mildly more sexist. At the very worst.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I mean, what evidence is there of their society being way more sexist then our own?

Cause, personally, I saw it as, at worst, mildly more sexist. At the very worst.[/quote]Women are objectively damned in his world. The metaphysics actually says women are worse.

That is a pretty big difference.

All the other stuff about the lack of women in the world in general, the role of the women that do exist, the main villains being phallic-waving rape demons, the womb-plague, the No-God destroying fertility,
SPOILER: TJE
the main antagonist so far in TJE being a fertility cult
- all of that can be given 'too little evidence' or 'absense of evidence does not mean non-existence' clauses, but that the world specifically states in its bylaws that women are worse than men?

Women in Earwa got -1 STR. That's just how his world is. But that's a very misogynistic view.
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...