Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)

[Deluge]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1689787' date='Feb 17 2009, 15.48']Have you read some of the justifications of rape on this board? Or some of the fantasies that some people have of punishing Sansa?[/quote]
I mostly stick to GC, since AFFC was a while ago. Out of curiosity, how often would you say that sexist views are expressed on the on-topic parts of the board?

[Kalbear]

[quote]Regarding this quote of Bakkers, I think something people are missing here is that womens inferiority is not 'fact' per se it is fact in the eyes of the peoples current understanding of the world. In these world portrayed in these books people think its fact, that doesn't mean that it is though.[/quote]Err...

He's saying that the value of a woman's social and spiritual worth would be objective in the same way that the number of protons and neutrons that make up Uranium is objective. I really don't think you're actually reading it correctly. The facts in Bakker's world don't change; that's sort of the point of that sentence.

SPOILER: TJE info about this YET AGAIN

And in TJE, we see this to be the case both from Mimara's Judging Eye and the fact that while Kellhus has changed everything, sorcerers are still damned and women are still less

[quote]Earwa is not a world were women actually are inferior.

There are things men can do, and things women can do, being able to do one or not the other doesn't make you inferior or superior. Just take a look at our world, are men inferior or superior because they can't have babies?[/quote]I really think you've missed the discussion and what Bakker's actually said, because that's not it. This isn't a tale about how the society is wrong. The world, the God - they all dictate that women are socially and spiritually inferior. This is purposeful and by design.

[quote]I mostly stick to GC, since AFFC was a while ago. Out of curiosity, how often would you say that sexist views are expressed on the on-topic parts of the board?[/quote]I don't know how often it is, but it certainly pops up regularly. I haven't looked in the Can't Stand Sansa thread but I would bet there's some wonderful bits of it in there. It also pops up with Catelyn quite often.

[Mackaxx]

[quote]Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium[b]. Biblical Israel was such as world[/b][/quote]

[quote]Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - [b]which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors [i]thought[/i] they lived in. [/b][/quote]

Nuff said.

Or maybe not, I don't think you are reading it correctly. In biblical israel, in the world of our ancestors, the inferiority of race and sex WAS a fact, like the atomic weight of uranium (which varies according to isotope etc etc)

[Nerdanel]

I wonder if it is relevant that in the real world there is more than one isotope of uranium... Beyond slight differences in atomic weight, they also differ in their degree of radioactivity.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690227' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.33']I really think you've missed the discussion and what Bakker's actually said, because that's not it. This isn't a tale about how the society is wrong. The world, the God - they all dictate that women are socially and spiritually inferior. This is purposeful and by design.[/quote]

The worlds beliefs do, so do its gods. That does not mean they are correct.

Our gods and our world did EXACTLY the same thing. Some gods still do.

[Kalbear]

Well, I was presuming that he was talking about the averaged atomic weight which includes the statistical likelihood of isotopes as the overall sum.

[quote]Nuff said.

Or maybe not, I don't think you are reading it correctly. In biblical israel, in the world of our ancestors, the inferiority of race and sex WAS a fact, like the atomic weight of uranium.[/quote]I'm not sure how I can really convince you of this. Bakker's never said otherwise, and it's certainly been a pretty big part of this conversation to this point. By saying 'as our ancestors thought they lived in' I take it to mean he's creating a world where the metaphysics are real (and we know this to be true) and based on the premodern values of certain religions - the part that we thought we lived in. In other words, what if the world that they thought they lived in was correct and real?

If you like, ask him yourself I suppose. Is it more likely that everyone (his detractors and supporters) have gotten this right save you, or is it more likely that all of us missed it and Bakker hasn't bothered correcting us? I'd also recommend checking out the last thread and the choice he made about racism vs. sexism, and what he said about it.

[Mackaxx]

We can take it another step as well and say, well, in our world, women are inferior too according to some of our gods. In our world to a fundie it is still fact. Even if there is an inferiority why should that justify different treatment across the board?

In Earwa its possible the belief that women are spiritually inferior will not change, its very likely in fact, its still the case here after all. A lack of change doesn't mean that its actually true, its still just a belief.

Whatever the case, getting beat over the head with how smart esmi is all the time seems to me to be a constant condemnation of Earwas gender bias.

[Kalbear]

[quote]We can take it another step as well and say, well, in our world, women are inferior too according to some of our gods. In our world to a fundie it is still fact. Even if there is an inferiority why should that justify different treatment across the board?[/quote]It's a lot easier to justify different treatment if you say that women are inferior to men and it's scientifically provable, like it is in Earwa.

[quote]In Earwa its possible the belief that women are spiritually inferior will not change, its very likely in fact, its still the case here after all. A lack of change doesn't mean that its actually true, its still just a belief.[/quote]No, see, that's sort of the point. Even if the belief changes the actual truth does not.

SPOILER: TJE

And this is exactly what we see in TJE

. That's exactly the statement he's making, and one that you're totally missing. Bakker wrote a book where women are literally, objectively, scientifically inferior to men. It's a measurable and repeatable datum.

[kuenjato]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1690250' date='Feb 17 2009, 18.52']We can take it another step as well and say, well, in our world, women are inferior too according to some of our gods. In our world to a fundie it is still fact. Even if there is an inferiority why should that justify different treatment across the board?

In Earwa its possible the belief that women are spiritually inferior will not change, its very likely in fact, its still the case here after all. A lack of change doesn't mean that its actually true, its still just a belief.

Whatever the case, getting beat over the head with how smart esmi is all the time seems to me to be a constant condemnation of Earwas gender bias.[/quote]

Moreover, how are we to know that it won't change in the future? There are still possibly five - [i]five [/i]- books to go. Scott has all but loudly announced via trumpet and banners that the big stuff of the series is still to come.

Now, if his world remains static at the end of book 9, and sorcerors - and in particular, women - are still damned to hell for the overall perceptions of their world - THEN there will be some bitching. But I doubt things will stay the way they are. He wouldn't introduce the concept of 'The Judging Eye' to not [i]confront [/i] and possibly [i]change [/i]what that means later on down the road.

And if it really sticks in your craw, Kalbear, vote with your wallet. In any case, you've presented some interesting arguments and definately some issues to mull on in the eventual re-read.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690262' date='Feb 18 2009, 13.05']It's a lot easier to justify different treatment if you say that women are inferior to men and it's scientifically provable, like it is in Earwa.[/quote]

Except you can't prove it in Earwa, or anywhere for that matter.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690262' date='Feb 18 2009, 13.05']No, see, that's sort of the point. Even if the belief changes the actual truth does not. That's exactly the statement he's making, and one that you're totally missing. Bakker wrote a book where women are literally, objectively, scientifically inferior to men. It's a measurable and repeatable datum.[/quote]

Inferior and superior is measurable and repeatable? As a sex? Bullshit.

Some traits men are better, some with women. That makes neither superior.

The superior and inferior overall comes from crappy religious texts and entrenched traditions.

You for instance one may say mandate schoolmen are superior to everyone in respect to magic. Lets say for arguments sake that thats true. Now as they are all dudes that makes the fellas superior to women in mandate magic. Just as men in general are stronger physically than women.

Does that make women inferior overall?

No, it doesn't.

[Mackaxx]

To add, basically if were going to go by your criteria of superiority (which appears to be physical and magical strength) then in our world men are superior to women as well.

Is this the case?

Off to lunch now, cheerio.

[Finn]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1690250' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.52']We can take it another step as well and say, well, in our world, women are inferior too according to some of our gods. In our world to a fundie it is still fact.

In Earwa its possible the belief that women are spiritually inferior will not change, its very likely in fact, its still the case here after all. A lack of change doesn't mean that its actually true, its still just a belief.[/quote]

It does seem to be the case, from the author's interviews and interventions in this thread, as well as evidence from TJE (which I've not read yet) that the "spiritual inferiority" of women is some kind of metaphysical truth in Earwa and not simply a belief. This is one of the main things that has people up in arms. In fact, I think it not unlikely that the author wanted people to be up in arms about this.

Now, we don't really know what this means yet. And perhaps the metaphysical reality of Earwa will prove to be "adjustable" in some way. But the inferiority premise is designed to provoke comment (or maybe just provoke), so here we are . . .

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Balefont' post='1689262' date='Feb 17 2009, 06.02']I can't really agree with this, Ro. There are plenty of books out there on uncomfortable and unenjoyable subjects that people read for various reasons such as, but not limited to, educating oneself.[/quote]

I don't think I was clear - I blame my broken tooth meds (yes, I was actually a bear with a broken tooth :lol: ) I think its a matter of what people find enjoyable. Education is always enjoyable even if the subject matter isn't. Clinton's book was one of the most boring self-important books I have ever read but it was still enjoyable since I like to read biographies. The Dali Lama's books are far more enjoyable on several levels. Its not that I hate these books - I actually thought they are boring crap and full of more self-importance than Clinton or Greenspan's books. :gag: Not as horrible as those Gorn?? Gan?? books, but still just...meh.


[quote name='The Iceman of the North' post='1689284' date='Feb 17 2009, 06.50']Are you really claiming that you only read what you enjoy, Ro? I read a lot of stuff that depict stuff I don't enjoy, in some cases (fiction) I will read it because I 'enjoy' the story as a whole, in other cases (non-fiction) I read it because I consider it somewhat important to know about. But 'enjoying' reading books where rape occurs*, and actually enjoying reading about rape, are two completely different things.

[b]ETA:[/b] I note Bale made the same point two posts upthread...

* I'm not talking about reading the book because it includes rape, but reading books that happens to include rape - like ASOIAF.[/quote]

Indeed Iceman. Yet look at your sig. Its easy to be dismissive of something that is likely to never happen to you.

[quote]Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992).[58] 1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape.[59]

According to a news report on BBC1 channel presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in UK last year or about 230 cases every day. According to that report one of every 200 women in the UK was raped last year. The report also showed that only 800 persons were convicted in rape crimes that same year[/quote]

16% reported, with an estimated one in six. Thats a lot of crime and people to toss out of hand.


[quote name='Relic' post='1689632' date='Feb 17 2009, 12.24']Like that gay vampire/serial killer book you tried to get me to read a few years ago =p?

edit - amazon just sent me the email ive been waiting all month for. The next book is in the mail. fuck yeah![/quote]

You ask for cheese, it is provided. :lol:

[quote name='Jacen' post='1689861' date='Feb 17 2009, 15.53']I'm in FUCKING awe that you guys and gals have the energy for Bakker and Women, part the[u][b] third.[/b][/u][/quote]

Its like the athiest threads - that is on its 4th iteration. This time.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1689915' date='Feb 17 2009, 16.22']<----- 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]

Denstorebog and I had that argument/disagreement several times. Kal is excepted because he CARES. He cares about women deeply and is one of the few truly honorable men. I am glad I know him. :hug:


[quote name='Arakasi' post='1689948' date='Feb 17 2009, 16.34']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.[/quote]

See denstorebog remark, however I think you add as much as Kal does. Even if I give up on this thread (which I am, I am bored now. :P) I'd like to read what you think.

[quote name='Shryke' post='1689955' date='Feb 17 2009, 16.36']<- ia somewhat amused by MonDonner's attempts to define sexism as something only a women can indentify

Nice post though.[/quote]

Don't worry, no one will ever accuse you of being feminist.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1690006' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.06']Technically, it was the second person genitive. But if I'm stooping to the level of pompous windbag, Kalbear, then you're starting to sound like an angry crank. Using emotionally loaded language to lampoon is an age old and quite effective rhetorical strategy. But it doesn't carry any logical force.

In fact, it's almost as bad as making ad hominem aspersions.

These are the tactics of people who either run out of arguments or of patience.

Me, all I can do is keep writing the way I talk, and when I debate these things verbally it never results in hard feelings.

I'm not really blaming you. I've been called pompous on enough threads on enough MBs to know that something in the signal I send tweaks people the wrong way. I truly wish I could get on top of it, but I really have no clue what the trigger is. I bite bullets. I ask questions. I qualify to high heaven, but still I seem provoke this response - while in some cases saying precisely the same things I do around bar tables.

Maybe it's the absence of beer. Is it possible to have an e-smell?

scott/[/quote]

You can call it first person on Mars, but it doesn't change that you posted in a way to try to disguse yourself. That is beyond lame. As they say in therapy, the only constant with your relationships is you.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1690028' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.19']I haven't seen a thread move this fast since i went onto a tolkien web site and admitted that i have always hated Hobbits...what a shit storm that was.

I am going upstairs to start another reading as of right now...i'm sure by the time i look at this thread again it will be page 13, but whatever.

Don't you people have things to do?......as he goes to find something to do.[/quote]

I don't like hobbits either. I absolutely am utterly grossed out by feet and hobbits are just moving, hairy feet. God, they are gross!!

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1690030' date='Feb 17 2009, 17.19']Is it bad of me to wonder if debates like this are for mostly-WASP type people, those who don't have to worry about the [i]probability[/i] of graphic violence occurring to them or around them on a daily basis? Because right now, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how, for example, a woman from the Darfur region might interpret the debates on sexism. Would her views be fundamentally the same as expressed by many here, or would it differ in so many subtle and/or obvious ways?

I guess this is my muddle-headed way of asking if there is an universal definition of sexism that applies across time, place, and cultures. Because heaven forbid if this ends up being another argument where the WASPs speak for the "poor, condemned" cultures.[/quote]

I think you unintentionally hit why I am so dismissive of *waves hand* all this. I have been raped and for me that comes before petty or unpetty sexism. I know exactly how easily it can happen. I don't dislike the books as much as I dislike the whateva!! attitude about the danger that women are in from birth to death.

A man who is starving to death probably doesn't care at first that the food he is eating is poison. Or a thirsting person who drinks from the ocean.


[quote name='Deluge' post='1690225' date='Feb 17 2009, 19.30']I mostly stick to GC, since AFFC was a while ago. Out of curiosity, how often would you say that sexist views are expressed on the on-topic parts of the board?[/quote]

It goes in waves. There will be a mass vomit of stupidity over weeks then it goes quiet for a time.


And now, I am done. This really has gotten redundent and I love ya Kal and J, but I know the two of you can nuance each other to death for DAYS!! :kiss:

[Kalbear]

[quote]To add, basically if were going to go by your criteria of superiority (which appears to be physical and magical strength) then in our world men are superior to women as well.[/quote]What? No. This isn't me saying because women can't do something that they're worse than men.

This is the author creating a world where God actually exists, heaven and hell exist, damnation exists, and God can be communicated with and communicates in turn (in various ways). And one of the things that God allows is for people to literally see the inferiority of women that He dictates.

[quote]Inferior and superior is measurable and repeatable? As a sex? Bullshit.

Some traits men are better, some with women. That makes neither superior.

The superior and inferior overall comes from crappy religious texts and entrenched traditions.[/quote]It comes from the actual God of the world that created the whole damn thing! It doesn't come from religious texts; it comes from the actual thing they worship. And some people on Earwa have the actual literal ability to see this value the same way they can see the mark of the Few. This is a shared, specific experience. Furthermore, [i]this is the actual intent and desire of Bakker[/i]. This is what he said he wanted to do.

[quote]Now, if his world remains static at the end of book 9, and sorcerors - and in particular, women - are still damned to hell for the overall perceptions of their world - THEN there will be some bitching. But I doubt things will stay the way they are. He wouldn't introduce the concept of 'The Judging Eye' to not confront and possibly change what that means later on down the road.[/quote]Confront I agree with. Change I'm not so sure. Bakker's wily, and his writing isn't often what I expect. I don't know if we're going to get a happily ever after where the world is brought to modern sensibilities; this I suspect would be offensive to Bakker and very against his point of creating an anti-romanticized fantasy world. If I had to guess, I'd say that any ending would go for a third way - where the modernity of what Kellhus provides is also weighted with actual purpose, what the modernity cannot bring. But I don't know whether that will make anyone less damned or less inferior in the eyes of God.

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='kuenjato' post='1690269' date='Feb 17 2009, 20.07']Moreover, how are we to know that it won't change in the future? There are still possibly five - [i]five [/i]- books to go. Scott has all but loudly announced via trumpet and banners that the big stuff of the series is still to come.

Now, if his world remains static at the end of book 9, and sorcerors - and in particular, women - are still damned to hell for the overall perceptions of their world - THEN there will be some bitching. But I doubt things will stay the way they are. He wouldn't introduce the concept of 'The Judging Eye' to not [i]confront [/i] and possibly [i]change [/i]what that means later on down the road.

And if it really sticks in your craw, Kalbear, vote with your wallet. In any case, you've presented some interesting arguments and definately some issues to mull on in the eventual re-read.[/quote]


If I come to you and say, dude, the project you are working on will be utterly HATED by the boss, will you change your project or not? There is a very good reason George doesn't read the book threads here. I am uncomfortable when any author comes out of the woodwork (except Morgan!! *fangirl@!!!* ok, jk) - for one, if you have to explain your underlying motivation, you have already failed, for another, its hard for people to be honest with an author over the net on a forum like this.

In case I wasn't clear enough, I think it can influence the subsequent books if an author reads what the readers think about their books on this small of a level. And I think there is a risk of someone claiming credit for an idea after a book is published if an author is known to have been around. And should the author allow this sort of potential influence? And the author should be writing, not arguing that his books don't suck. :P

And congrats for proving its possible to be a bigger asshole than me. lol.

[Finn]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1690275' date='Feb 17 2009, 18.13']Except you can't prove it in Earwa, or anywhere for that matter.

Inferior and superior is measurable and repeatable? As a sex? Bullshit.

Some traits men are better, some with women. That makes neither superior.

The superior and inferior overall comes from crappy religious texts and entrenched traditions.

You for instance one may say mandate schoolmen are superior to everyone in respect to magic. Lets say for arguments sake that thats true. Now as they are all dudes that makes the fellas superior to women in mandate magic. Just as men in general are stronger physically than women.

Does that make women inferior overall?

No, it doesn't.[/quote]

Please hold on to this incredulity when you come to the realization that the author does indeed want to create a world where ugly beliefs are literalized and women are, in fact, "spiritually inferior" - whatever that means. (And really just reading the author's posts in these threads ought to do the trick). At that point, you can join the rest of us on the "What!? . . . really???" boat.

[Arthmail]

Ah, extremely critical, certainly. Rude because i am extremely critical, i don't agree. Should i soften my reaction based on the idea that because the author himself is partaking of the conversation, or should i respond honestly -- if with perhaps a bit too much force?

I don't know what's more rude, Shryke. To be brutally honest, or condescending. Probably both.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690291' date='Feb 18 2009, 13.28']This is the author creating a world where God actually exists, heaven and hell exist, damnation exists, and God can be communicated with and communicates in turn (in various ways). And one of the things that God allows is for people to literally see the inferiority of women that He dictates.

etc etc[/quote]

Easy, what is the nature of this 'god'. Why is it a god? And why should I believe it when it tells me women are inferior when in many criteria they are not. The catholic church is managing to get over their 'god' and its sexism why not Earwa.

It's like if Jesus appeared tomorrow and everyone in the world knew through his power that he was real and true, that doesn't mean everyone would bow down and worship does it?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690025' date='Feb 17 2009, 18.17']Saying "[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=663655"]to the point where I thought Bakker was being heavy-handed with 'even the gods get it wrong' theme.[/url]" is second person? Is "[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=1677052"]The real problem could be that he's too clever by a half.[/url]" this as well?

Huh. Learn something new every day. Could've sworn that was 3rd person, not second, but I admit I'm not that familiar with the genitive case in the English language.[/quote]Okay, now you are being an ass. I'm not sure if talking about the people themselves over the content of the work is really conducive to the sort of discussion we would like to be having, and that goes for Scott as well.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690238' date='Feb 17 2009, 20.41']Well, I was presuming that he was talking about the averaged atomic weight which includes the statistical likelihood of isotopes as the overall sum.

I'm not sure how I can really convince you of this. Bakker's never said otherwise, and it's certainly been a pretty big part of this conversation to this point. By saying 'as our ancestors thought they lived in' I take it to mean he's creating a world where the metaphysics are real (and we know this to be true) and based on the premodern values of certain religions - the part that we thought we lived in. In other words, what if the world that they thought they lived in was correct and real?

If you like, ask him yourself I suppose. Is it more likely that everyone (his detractors and supporters) have gotten this right save you, or is it more likely that all of us missed it and Bakker hasn't bothered correcting us? I'd also recommend checking out the last thread and the choice he made about racism vs. sexism, and what he said about it.[/quote]I just got back from a course on everyone's favorite Old Testament, and we were talking about an issue adjacent to the one we are currently discussing, and the guest speaker said a rather interesting thing that seemed to pertain to this thread, "The clean and unclean dichotomy of the Old Testament may seem very superficial and unreal to us modern people, but if you lived in those times, then these metaphysical properties certainly seemed very real and were treated as real."

[quote name='Shryke' post='1690355' date='Feb 17 2009, 22.42']thebadlady, why are you still here?

I mean seriously. You've contributed nothing. Can you just get Kalbear or Finn or someone to post twice as much and then just leave?[/quote]These sort of comments are not exactly constructive either.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Finn' post='1690286' date='Feb 18 2009, 13.26']It does seem to be the case, from the author's interviews and interventions in this thread, as well as evidence from TJE (which I've not read yet) that the "spiritual inferiority" of women is some kind of metaphysical truth in Earwa and not simply a belief. This is one of the main things that has people up in arms. In fact, I think it not unlikely that the author wanted people to be up in arms about this.

Now, we don't really know what this means yet. And perhaps the metaphysical reality of Earwa will prove to be "adjustable" in some way. But the inferiority premise is designed to provoke comment (or maybe just provoke), so here we are . . .[/quote]

Even taking the inferiority thing literally, and saying that men are superior to women in some ways on Earwa, that doesn't in any way serve justify them being the overall superiors.

[quote name='Finn' post='1690337' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.17']Please hold on to this incredulity when you come to the realization that the author does indeed want to create a world where ugly beliefs are literalized and women are, in fact, "spiritually inferior" - whatever that means. (And really just reading the author's posts in these threads ought to do the trick). At that point, you can join the rest of us on the "What!? . . . really???" boat.[/quote]

Please hold onto yours when you realize that 'spiritually inferior' is a pretty loaded term, what exactly does it mean really?

Then when you stop and say, well, women ARE inferior in some ways to men in [i]our[/i] world, spiritually, physically and mentally (gasp) and yet despite it all some of us have come to the conclusion that we should treat each other as equals. [I now kindly ask any shocked readers to remove the feminist jerked knee from your eye and realize that women are superior to men in lots of ways too].

Despite all the real and perceived (spiritual) 'superiorities' our society is baggaged with we have still managed to muddle on through.

Again, whether it be real superiority or not (its not) in Earwa the whole 'esmi soooo smart' thing is pretty blatantly trying to point out that women are unjustly persecuted. Even if they aren't strong enough in trait X Y or Z it doesn't justify their treatment historically in our context or Earwas. And yet in both it is the case.