Jump to content

Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)


JGP

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689891' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.10']I guess I don't see it that way. Seswatha's a woman, but what she does and that history changes nothing. Witches are burned other than the Mandate, who exist mostly because they hold the Gnosis and no other school can compete with that power (which is EXACTLY the case in the series through PoN now). The current culture hates the Mandate in either story, though there would be a bit more hatred of them for being women, I suppose; they'd still be either shunned or courted for their usefulness. Akka's primary trait of being a teacher and being wanted by royalty to teach doesn't need to change, nor does Akka's relationship with Inrau.

It does get tricky with Akka being 'turned' to want Kellhus, though this isn't that hard in the text given Moe's power over Cnaiur; it's fairly well established anyway. But I could see that being something of an outcry, though Akka's rejection would be fairly awesome. Or you could go as we talked about before - make akka not interesting to Kellhus because she's not fertile any more. In which case Esme loving Akka and then Kellhus just makes her bi.

To each their own, but I don't see it as particularly tokenistic; complaining about the central character in a story about gender relations being a woman and saying that's a token is like saying the Handmaid's tale should have been about a man because a woman is tokenistic there too.[/quote]Again, because it highly appears to be the case that Akka's masculinity is intrinsic to the quality of the story's integrity. He is a challenge to the other depictions of masculinity seen in the novels. The Mandate are not allowed to marry and they sell their souls to win the world. Esmi is Akka's link outside of that world, and his attempt to reach out for a normal non-sorcerers life. I'm not sure if the fullness of Akka's relationship with Esmi could be captured by turning Akka into a female.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1689857' date='Feb 17 2009, 16.51']We're not talking about Homer, so this is all irrelevant.[/quote]

You were the one who kept going on how including powerful women in a fantasy that heavily borrows from pre-modern history would be tokenism and dread (?) PC-ness, so this is very relevant that somebody who actually lived in that era wasn't afraid to do so.

Re: subtexts, as a person who grew up on Russian literature and film, I am rather familiar with and IMHO sensitive to them, because good writers/film-makers were typically forced to resort to various ploys in order to express certain things that they couldn't speak about openly.
This doesn't make me any kind of expert or anything, but I usually don't have problems with understanding subtexts unless they heavily depend on factual knowledge that I lack. Naturally, if I tried to read "Gulliver's Travels" without annotations, then most of Swift's allusions would go over my head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<----- is somewhat amused* by all the men insisting on their own interpretations of what constitutes sexism and misogyny, as obviously they all know better than us womenfolk. Carry on, boys**, we bow before your superior judgment.


*for a given value of "amused"
**Kalbear excepted from the snark, as he is doing a decent job now that most of us ladies have left in disgust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1689915' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.22']<----- is somewhat amused* by all the men insisting on their own interpretations of what constitutes sexism and misogyny, as obviously they all know better than us womenfolk. Carry on, boys**, we bow before your superior judgment.

*for a given value of "amused"
**Kalbear excepted from the snark, as he is doing a decent job now that most of us ladies have left in disgust[/quote]Your snark is rather unfair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1689900' date='Feb 17 2009, 14.14']Regarding the rape justifications and fantasies thereof, yeah, I've read some and heard about others. What the fuck does that have to do with any of this?[/quote]Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. It's clear to me that a lot of violence towards women is almost entirely because of hate. And it's not very hard to see examples of that kind of hate on this board, much less in other real-life instances.

Mostly, I disagree that the difference between racism and sexism is that one is based on hate. I'd argue that racism came about primarily because of a need to dehumanize people to make them a commodity or treat them in an inhuman way. I think that sexism has similar origins.

[quote]I think you're getting caught up in the role you've taken on in this thread, honestly, and I unfortunately am having a hard time digesting this kind of righteous indignation from a man. Call it reverse sexism, whatever. Could you get even 50% of the women on this board to agree with you that sexism is about hatred, and womankind [b]as a whole[/b] have been hated since time immemorial?[/quote]Am I running for office now? It's my opinion. And yeah, I think that dismissing sexism as compared to racism because racism is based on hate is fairly boorish and dismissive of actual gender and sexism issues. But we'll turn it around, since it was your argument: Could you get even 50% of the people on this baord to agree with you that racism is about hatred, and non-whites as a whole have been hated since time immemorial?

I don't think so.


[quote]Both are ultimately about flawed people. In the subjective, we're flawed because we're human. In the objective, we're flawed because we've been designed that way. Because we're human. Am I really going out on a limb by saying that premodern societies [s]couldn't[/s] didn't make that distinction?[/quote]I think you're missing the connection between the author and the reader more than anything. It's one thing to read a world where people think that women suck. It's another thing [i]from the point of view of a reader[/i] to read a world where women do, always, suck. The difference to the societies you're reading about is nil, I agree. The difference to the audience you're writing to is bigger I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689930' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.28']Mostly, I disagree that the difference between racism and sexism is that one is based on hate. I'd argue that racism came about primarily because of a need to dehumanize people to make them a commodity or treat them in an inhuman way. I think that sexism has similar origins.[/quote] :agree:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]And it changes nothing about the objective reality telling the Mandate sorcerers that they're damned and inferior to men anyway. I mean, think about what people in PoN think about the Mandate now. They think they're a bunch of idiotic kooks (ETA: kooks, not cooks) who are protecting a dead legacy about something totally unimportant. They're already shown with contempt. Having them be women changes none of that; if anything, they should be more contemptuous because they're so desired (at least that's one of the premises from Kellhus).[/quote]

Their held in contempt NOW.

The book makes it quite clear that, in the past, they were held in very high regard. Their star has fallen ALOT, mostly in the last few hundred years because the Consult invented Skin Spies and went underground, in some part to turn the Mandate (their enemy) into a laughing stock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689930' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.28']Mostly, I disagree that the difference between racism and sexism is that one is based on hate. I'd argue that racism came about primarily because of a need to dehumanize people to make them a commodity or treat them in an inhuman way. I think that sexism has similar origins.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1689924' date='Feb 17 2009, 16.25']Your snark is rather unfair.[/quote]

Not really. I bowed out of this discussion for mostly similar reasons. I was also really amused by people saying "I'm a feminist" and then going off on a spiel as if that declaration game them some immunity or something. To those who have said in these threads that you are a feminist before going off on something that is clearly quite unfeminist, please stop. It's not helping you out much, or at the least as convincing as Colmes proclaiming he is liberal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The Mandate are not allowed to marry and they sell their souls to win the world.[/quote]See, MFC, I think this is actually a clever take on current homosexual issues in the US and elsewhere. Akka as a woman isn't allowed to marry a woman? Huh.

But I get what you're saying wrt Akka being a representation of masculinity in a counter to Cnaiur or Kellhus being the Ayn Randian True Man. I think there are plenty of sympathetic masculine roles in the world that would serve as a counter to that fairly well, but it's more authorial decision than anything. Honestly, I think Akka couldn't be a woman because Akka is bascially Bakker's avatar in the book.

[quote]The book makes it quite clear that, in the past, they were held in very high regard. Their star has fallen ALOT, mostly in the last few hundred years because the Consult invented Skin Spies and went underground, in some part to turn the Mandate (their enemy) into a laughing stock.[/quote]And in the past, couldn't women have been held in higher regard? Could the Mandate a long time ago have made women have a bit more rights - until the Consult humiliated them by disappearing and things like Inri Sejenus came about to make women more put down? I still don't see this as a fundamental change in the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maia' post='1689914' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.21']You were the one who kept going on how including powerful women in a fantasy that heavily borrows from pre-modern history would be tokenism and dread (?) PC-ness, so this is very relevant that somebody who actually lived in that era wasn't afraid to do so.[/quote]

No, I was saying IN THIS STORY it would not make sense.

Your the one blwing this out of proportion into a statement about ALL literature to feed your own self-righteous anger schtick.

There's nothing wrong with powerful women in fantasy. But in this series, Akka being a women would be a huge change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1689915' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.22']<----- is somewhat amused* by all the men insisting on their own interpretations of what constitutes sexism and misogyny, as obviously they all know better than us womenfolk. Carry on, boys**, we bow before your superior judgment.


*for a given value of "amused"
**Kalbear excepted from the snark, as he is doing a decent job now that most of us ladies have left in disgust[/quote]

<- ia somewhat amused by MonDonner's attempts to define sexism as something only a women can indentify

Nice post though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689950' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.34']And in the past, couldn't women have been held in higher regard? Could the Mandate a long time ago have made women have a bit more rights - until the Consult humiliated them by disappearing and things like Inri Sejenus came about to make women more put down? I still don't see this as a fundamental change in the story.[/quote]

Inri Senjenus comes about LONG before the Mandates gradual humiliation. And you don't think the long period of Mandate authority would have any effect? That it would all just disappear?

And this is just one part of it. MFC is arguing another angle and there's more.

The point is, it's not a minor change in the story. It would involve alot of rewriting, not just changing a bunch of "He"s to "She"s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Inri Senjenus comes about LONG before the Mandates gradual humiliation.[/quote]Right, but the condemnation of the Mandate doesn't have to, does it? And isn't the notion of a premodern society condemning women because they covet them right up the alley?

[quote]The point is, it's not a minor change in the story. It would involve alot of rewriting, not just changing a bunch of "He"s to "She"s.[/quote]I don't disagree with that. It isn't just paste some boobs on Akka and have her go to town. I just don't think it requires a massive rewrite of the history, that it would need to change the fundamental storyline or any of the themes. I don't think it really changes Bakker's central messages or any of the big plot points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep talking about how women are objectively spiritually inferior in Eärwa, but I think an important question that keeps getting bypassed is [i]inferior how and why exactly[/i]. I think we can say it has nothing to do with intelligence, at the very least.

Recently I stumbled upon the following excerpt:

[quote]According to Achamian, women had no instict for principle. For them everything was embodied... How had he put it? Oh yes, that [i]existence preceded essence[/i] for women. By nature, the tracks travelled by their souls lay parallel to those demanded by principle. The feminine soul was more yielding, more compassionate, more nurturing than the masculine. Consequently, principle became more difficult for them to see, like a staff in a thicket, which was why women were more likely to confuse selfishness with propriety - which - apparently - was what she was doing.

But for [i]men[/i] whose inclinations ranged so far and so violently, principle was an ever-present burden, a yoke they either toiled under or cast off altogether. Unlike women, men could always see what they [i]should[/i] do because it differed so drastically from what they [i]wanted[/i].

At first, Esmenet had almost believed him.[/quote]

Now, I don't know how close that is to the real objective truth of Eärwa, but it's the only passage in the books I know of that handles the subject matter. But what's funny and significant about the quote is that from another point of view it's actually saying that women are [i]spiritually superior.[/i]

Achamian is basically saying that women are righteous by nature while men are inclined to sin. Funny that. Thus a man who is making an effort to be good is being more good than a woman trying to do the same, since the man has to try harder and be always on his guard, which spurs him into greater excellency. I assume a Sranc who was randomly born with a soul but chose to act moral against its natural instincts would be the greatest saint of all time.

Also, if Achamian is right, it could be a good thing for Eärwa to switch to an all-queens model. Sure, they would lose the occasional Mr. Principle like Proyas (even if he's overjudgemental and narrow-minded) but they would also avoid bloodthirsty male tyrants.

And as for Achamian himself in the light of his own views, we must remember that there have been loud hints that Achamian is a closet pedophile. Nevertheless, on the page he has thus far never raped a child but instead had sex with adult women. I think Bakker is being very daring here and bucking against the media trend of "pedophile = automatically pure Evil". (In case you doubt Achamian is a pedophile, I can provide some quotes if asked.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]And as for Achamian himself in the light of his own views, we must remember that there have been loud hints that Achamian is a closet pedophile. Nevertheless, on the page he has thus far never raped a child but instead had sex with adult women. I think Bakker is being very daring here and bucking against the media trend of "pedophile = automatically pure Evil". (In case you doubt Achamian is a pedophile, I can provide some quotes if asked.)[/quote]
I'm intruiged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is fast. I had one quick meeting, grabbed a coffee, and...

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689930' date='Feb 17 2009, 15.28']Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. It's clear to me that a lot of violence towards women is almost entirely because of hate. And it's not very hard to see examples of that kind of hate on this board, much less in other real-life instances.[/quote]

That's violence. We're talking about discrimination. Back in the day I might have acted violently against someone who gave me the finger [when I didn't deserve it [i]and[/i] was in a bad mood] but I never would've said I was discriminating against the guy. I was punishing him, getting power over him by showing my power over him. It was pathetic. Violence against women is pretty much the same thing, is it not? Except the guys who do it are... I don't know what they are. Sexist, as you'd have me believe? Whatever it is, it's not good. But it's not that. I don't think. Hmn...


[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689930' date='Feb 17 2009, 15.28']Mostly, I disagree that the difference between racism and sexism is that one is based on hate. I'd argue that racism came about primarily because of a need to dehumanize people to make them a commodity or treat them in an inhuman way. I think that sexism has similar origins.[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's possible that the US centric mind doesn't distinguish between racism and slavery the way... Wait. [i]Uh oh[/i]. I'm going to respectfully bow out of the feminism vs. racism debate. I think you're right to an extent, regarding said debate, but I'll never agree sexism is about hate.


[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689930' date='Feb 17 2009, 15.28']I think you're missing the connection between the author and the reader more than anything. It's one thing to read a world where people think that women suck. It's another thing [i]from the point of view of a reader[/i] to read a world where women do, always, suck. The difference to the societies you're reading about is nil, I agree. The difference to the audience you're writing to is bigger I think.[/quote]

I'm not missing it. I'm actually wondering why these readers you keep talking about aren't. I thought the majority of us were self-aware adults and accomplished readers at that-- capable of leaving our shit at the door when it comes to comprehending a book. Apparently not.


ETA: sexism, not feminism. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1689948' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.34']Not really. I bowed out of this discussion for mostly similar reasons.[/quote]It's unfair because only Kalbear is somehow exempted from a snark that is essentially aimed at all other men in this thread.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689950' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.34']See, MFC, I think this is actually a clever take on current homosexual issues in the US and elsewhere. Akka as a woman isn't allowed to marry a woman? Huh.[/quote]Wow, that's real clever... :rolleyes: but rather heavy-handed and about as subtle as a falling ton of bricks. I knew full well of this angle prior to my post, but Akka's own "sense of masculinity" is stripped from him due to his obligations as a sorcerer. In fact, Akka is not just not permitted to marry, but I do believe that the Mandate is supposed to be celibate. It is effectively a monastic order.

Incidentally, having the Mandate as a female monastic order, would drastically change this dynamic, since nunneries were often [i]empowering[/i] for women (even without the Gnostic sorcery) since it allowed for a means for them to escape their subjugation by patriarchal society (i.e. celibacy = non-obligated baby-making).

[quote]But I get what you're saying wrt Akka being a representation of masculinity in a counter to Cnaiur or Kellhus being the Ayn Randian True Man. I think there are plenty of sympathetic masculine roles in the world that would serve as a counter to that fairly well, but it's more authorial decision than anything. [b]Honestly, I think Akka couldn't be a woman because Akka is bascially Bakker's avatar in the book.[/b][/quote]Apart from Akka, I really could not find too many redeeming males in the story, but the bold highlights what is most likely the actual truth of the matter. Akka is Bakker's own link into a world that he also seems to hate (or at least claims to hate).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Violence against women is pretty much the same thing, is it not? Except the guys who do it are... I don't know what they are. Whatever it is, it's not good.[/quote]Not according to most studies on psychopaths, serial rapists and sociopaths, no. It's not violence because you're angry at a specific action; it's violence against women because they're women. Bakker mentioned this earlier as a goal for his books and why the Consult is what they are.

I do agree that feminism is not about hate - not sure where I said that - or that sexism is specifically about hate. But I think that people making racist actions can be about a person hating because of race, and I think the same is true about sex - that was the point I was trying to make.

[quote]I thought the majority of us were self-aware adults and accomplished readers at that-- capable of leaving our shit at the door when it comes to reading a book. Apparently not.[/quote]It's easy to leave your shit at the door when it's not a big deal in your life. That's a privilege that a lot of people don't have, I think.
[quote]Akka is not just not permitted to marry, but I do believe that the Mandate is supposed to be celibate. It is effectively a monastic order.[/quote]I don't think that's true, MFC; I thought that there were mentions of this from elsewhere of them having relations with whores commonly. Not that whether they did do women and whether they were allowed to is the same thing, of course. :)

[quote]Incidentally, having the Mandate as a female monastic order, would drastically change this dynamic, since nunneries were often empowering for women (even without the Gnostic sorcery) since it allowed for a means for them to escape their subjugation by patriarchal society (i.e. celibacy = non-obligated baby-making).[/quote]And in Earwa this would be especially empowering as it would give them the right to not be stoned to death as a witch. :P Though you may be right; part of the bleakness of Earwa is that there is literally no hope for women, no solace, nothing. They have a shitty life, and they get to deal, and nothing ever gets better. Of course, that would be part of the things folks were asking to correct as being too distracting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Apart from Akka, I really could not find too many redeeming males in the story, but the bold highlights what is most likely the actual truth of the matter. Akka is Bakker's own link into a world that he also seems to hate (or at least claims to hate).[/quote]If true, Bakker must hate himself.

I see it more as Akka is the one we're supposed to really symphathise with. He's the every man, the normal guy.

Who is, funnily enough, cast in the "Gandalf" role.
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...