Jump to content

Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)


JGP

Recommended Posts

[quote]Makaxx : This is a great example of irony. According to your definitions these books make women objectively inferior (I disagree of course but lets carry on), these books which have women being objectively inferior in fact do not horribly offend a rather large whack of readers out there. has our society already moved on and gotten past it? Can many people now see the forest from the trees?

I like to think so.[/quote]

Umm..it appears from these threads at least, that [i]by and large[/i] it is the male readers that have 'moved on and got past it'. The women are a bit more troubled, if not offended. Nice to know you've got past sexism., Makk. Not so great for those of us who live with it, maybe?


[quote]DF : 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]

*sigh* So I don't have to wear a burkha, I don't really get sexism? I'm a whiny WASP who is finding petty reasons for complaint? Speaking for my sistahs when I have no clue of what they are going through? I dunno, maybe in academia sexism is an ..err..academic debate, but in the world I live and work in ( construction), it's really really not all over. No, I don't live in fear of being stoned because I've slept with more than one man. But I do have to deal with my opinions being given less weight, my appearance being commented on, and my authority being undermined because I am a woman. I am not afforded the same automatic respect a man is. These books are upsetting in some regards because they are a magnification of what we live with.

[quote]I don't know. Here's a question in return. Does it bother you that a lot of women (and men) react badly to the representation of women, does it give you pause for thought, does it make you re-examine your work? or are you supremely confident you got it right? ( by that, I mean fulfilled your own goals of 'espousing and problematizing feminism, and 'challenging gender assumptions')[/quote]

[quote]I'm not supremely confident about anything. I literally think certainty is a disease, and that if and when we are finally wiped out, certainty will likely be the culprit.

And yes, I am bothered that so many - male and female - misread my intentions. I sometimes wish I hadn't gone back through the first two books and rubbed out what I feared at the time were heavy-handed feminist gestures. But I think I've already bitten this bullet several times in several different ways.

If anything, I think I'm too critical of my work. My wife certainly thinks so, anyway.[/quote]

Thank you for responding. Not quite sure in what way you have 'bitten the bullet'? drop in sales? or internet discussions? Never mind. It's interesting that responses have given you pause for reflection.

Stego : Zak and I were discussing this yesterday ( he's an archaeologist and historian - you probably know that, and it doesn't completely qualify his thoughts on it, but he certainly speaks on these matters with more knowledge than me). Apparently, there was a lot of research in the sixties and seventies from a feminist - or gender- viewpoint which looked for early mysandric societies. Much of that research has since been debunked unfortunately, as people being too keen to find examples of pre-modern 'feminism' and the data really not supporting it. I'm not sure how recent your reading on Gilgamesh et al is, but there is a good chance it's not as good for the wimmins as one would like to think. That made me sad :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply unbelieveable. Too much for me to follow with any diligence, honestly. So if I've missed questions, arguments, and what not, I apologize.

Just a couple of things.

I'm one of those people who don't really feel the savagery in Cormac McCarthy's [i]Blood Meridien[/i]. I see it, well enough; it just doesn't strike me viscerally like it does so many others. I belong to the desensitized generation, and I really do fear that this pushes my representations over-the-top for those who don't share my numbness to things violent and sexual. Given a certain yardstick, I'm sure I count as 'damaged' in this respect.

I'm starting to get the sense that it's the combination of this with the controversial themes I introduce that is the source of the problem for many readers, especially female. I'm sure if I had dialed back the volume on the graphic content while still exploring the themes, the books would have been more palatable. I have a growing list of "Mistakes I think I have made," and when the series is complete, I may very well add this to the list.

Secondly, is what's right right because the gods hold it to be true, or do the gods hold it to be true because it's right? I wanted to put my readers in the Socratic no man's land of this question by creating a fantasy world at odds with their values.

Now are people really suggesting this question shouldn't be asked in narrative form? That, despite the scriptural precedent, despite the fact that a substantial proportion of the human race thinks they live in a scriptural world, readers' should not be faced with this question with reference to gender? This strikes me as pious and, well, ridiculous. Given what I've read on cognitive psychology I can't help but think it's largely a matter of people trying to rationalize their moral intuitions. You were tweaked, therefore I simply [i]have[/i] to be doing something bad. The fact that I do so in a graphic cloud of sex and violence simply makes my badness seem all the more obvious. Part of an obvious pattern...

What we gain by going back to premodern worlds is a memory of moral certainty and solidarity - a world where everything and everyone finds themselves ranked in order of value. An objectively fascistic world. The question I'm asking, is what if the fundamentalists are right? What if you wake up one morning and literally find yourself [i]damned[/i] because of your live-and-let-live egalitarian principles?

I always like to say that I would spit in God's face, but truth be told, I would likely shit my pants. But what will Esmenet do? What will Achamian do?

What if the No-God [i]is the Saviour[/i]?

Keep in mind that Earwa, like all fantasy worlds, is a world steeped in intentionality, which is to say that setting is always a kind of character in fantasy. And characters - the good ones, anyway - develop. This is just to say the story ain't over yet, folks. Not by a long shot.

scott/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I know I miss a lot in these threads, especially when I'm at work (shhhh), but...

"Now are people really suggesting this question shouldn't be asked in narrative form?"

I don't know, are they? I can't bring to mind anybody who's said that. The closest would be, once more, questions about the methods of delivering the story-lesson-question-issue within the framework of the novel/series.
Has anybody actually said that this question shouldn't be asked, in narrative form or otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's all textual then where is the line drawn? At what point do you move away from stuff that is ok, given the intent, into stuff that is sexist regardless of intent. If there was more female characters, would that make any difference, since the rape and sex slavery would still be there? Would it make a difference if there was one genuinely empowered woman, since the three abused and unsustainable ones would still be there? If there was a neutral answer for women being spiritually inferior, would that make a difference, since Bakker's motivations wouldn't change?

It seems to be a question of a balancing between the book's purpose and the reader's sensibilities. Bakker doesn't give much balm to the reader's sensibilities which means some people don't enjoy these elements of the book. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't be the same book and others wouldn't enjoy it so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]What if the No-God is the Saviour?[/quote]

Heh, I believe I actually made that theory in one of the older threads...

[quote]At what point do you move away from stuff that is ok, given the intent, into stuff that is sexist regardless of intent.[/quote]

It's not a trial. And so the answer is, as always, it depends on the context.

I think the point that bothers me isn't the fact that there is no empowered woman: Not really, but that there are barely any *neutral* ones. No one who just goes on with their life. (admittedly there is almost no one like that, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons Earwa strikes me as not particularly genuine in the world-building sense)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1690849' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.56']I think the point that bothers me isn't the fact that there is no empowered woman: Not really, but that there are barely any *neutral* ones. No one who just goes on with their life. (admittedly there is almost no one like that, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons Earwa strikes me as not particularly genuine in the world-building sense)[/quote]


I agree lack of "fluff" as HE called it is, a definite weakness of the series. The story is just too bare, and lack of secondary female characters is only one aspect of this.

OTOH, that is why Scott's series is so far remarkably immune to dreaded Jordan sickness. You win some, you lose some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think the graphical content is too much. I think it adds spice and fits well with the story.

I think only religious people are going to find the idea of God vs. morality problematic. Fantasy has a long tradition of evil gods and god-like entities. Even when the setting does have good gods, it is good writing to keep them for whatever reason from solving the mortals' problems for them. For example, in Thomas Covenant the Creator may be benevolent, but he's on the other side of the Arch of Time and you're inside with Lord Foul. In Lord of the Rings, the Valar are afraid of a direct confrontation with Sauron causing devastation on a massive scale and sinking a significant fraction of the continent [i]again[/i]. In Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos the universe is just uncaring, with no real counterweight for the mighty horrors that inhabit it.

If a god is saying that women are spiritually inferior, it isn't correct just because it is a god, as far as anything more wide-ranging than the ordering of member ranks of that particular god's fan club goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the condemnation of personal attacks? [Soph, TP] There's been some back and forth, certainly, but... Were there posts deleted or something?

Fee, I can't speak for the other guys. My back and forth with Kal regarding the subjective vs. objective is my attempt at illustrating that the women, and some men, in this thread that are bothered by the sexism in the books are bothered because of the sexism in reality, past and present. It might seem moot at this point, but it's an important distinction, imo, especially since few could acknowledge it.

I personally haven't pushed the sexism aside and moved on, it's more a matter of having put it in perspective in relation to the books and a swap of faith-for-credit that Scott's actually going somewhere with this aspect of the series. I think he is, and although I'm not convinced if it's going to be pleasant I don't doubt it'll be thought provoking.

I gave a lot of thought last night, to feminism [and racism] I don't know if it's a lack of my education, experience, or a combination of the two or more, but I couldn't come to any conclusions due to *distraction no doubt, [i]and[/i] possibly just an inability of mine to do so. I don't know if that's bad or not, but I'm not the kind of guy who reserves judgment only in regard to himself.

*the distraction: a physical altercation between several fans [male and female] that I saw coming, having watched it develop throughout the game and involved myself to help break it up before it got [i]too[/i] bloody afterward

The reason I mention this, is because there I was, restraining a guy on the ground by his throat because he was going after a woman who back-handed him [he deserved it] while people are fighting all about us, it was so bizarre it sent my thought patterns out of what I normally would've considered true-- is it all, sexism, racism, slavery, even our arguments, just evolutionary [social, not physical] variations of [i]status anxiety[/i]?

Were we, [i]are[/i] we, really that pathetic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='gladius' post='1690863' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.14']Some people don't like "fluff" ;)[/quote]

Said people have no soul and should definately stay out of the fantasy genré :P

But I say this as a compulsive world-builder, who loves to see that a writer has been thinking about things like plumbing, trade-routes and cultivation patterns...

To a large point, the fluff is why I read fantasy in the first place. Lack of fluff starts ruining my suspense of disbelief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1690849' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.56']It's not a trial. And so the answer is, as always, it depends on the context.[/quote]

Yeah. And here, it seems to me, the guy is making a very agressive, intense statement about attitudes towards women, therefore a decision to be resolutely, unremittedly bleak towards women is arguably justified. It would dilute his theme to do otherwise.

[quote name='Galactus' post='1690849' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.56']I think the point that bothers me isn't the fact that there is no empowered woman: Not really, but that there are barely any *neutral* ones. No one who just goes on with their life. (admittedly there is almost no one like that, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons Earwa strikes me as not particularly genuine in the world-building sense)[/quote]

Here's one thing which I think could have been included without much problem. And fond mentions of wives or sisters wouldn't have really disrupted the 'Earwa is sexist' motif.


[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1690858' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.08']If a god is saying that women are spiritually inferior, it isn't correct just because it is a god, as far as anything more wide-ranging than the ordering of member ranks of that particular god's fan club goes.[/quote]

It doesn't seem so much a god as just a set of rules. Like a doorman at a strip club. Sorry, you can't come in mate, you're wearing [i]corruption[/i]. They'll let women in but they'll look at them funny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1690866' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.18']is it all, sexism, racism, slavery, even our arguments, just evolutionary [social, not physical] variations of [i]status anxiety[/i]?

Were we, [i]are[/i] we, really that pathetic?[/quote]

I think it's more a question of getting whatever we can get and making up reasons for it afterwards. Yeah, status is good, but wealth and land and power is better. Kellhus is just a concentrated version of the human race, except he doesn't bother justifying anything.

And yes, we're pathetic. The real question is, does the fact that we know it count for anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Eefphrodite' post='1690816' date='Feb 18 2009, 09.10']Okay, I know I miss a lot in these threads, especially when I'm at work (shhhh), but...

"Now are people really suggesting this question shouldn't be asked in narrative form?"

I don't know, are they? I can't bring to mind anybody who's said that. The closest would be, once more, questions about the methods of delivering the story-lesson-question-issue within the framework of the novel/series.
Has anybody actually said that this question shouldn't be asked, in narrative form or otherwise?[/quote]

Anyone asking "Why does the world of Earwa have to hold women as inferior to men?" is pretty much asking this question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this is me speaking as a Moderator.

[b]Complaints have been made about this thread.

We allow a lot in this forum that others generally forbid. That is fine. Free exchange of ideas and all that. Bravo. Yay for us. But there is also a certain level of simple courtesy needed for this or any forum to continue.

It isn't that personal comments are necessarily out-of-line (at least in terms of forum rules). But they can reach the point of eclipsing the topic of discussion.

This thread has been perilously close to crossing that line. Kindly keep yourselves on this side of it. [/b]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Anyone asking "Why does the world of Earwa have to hold women as inferior to men?" is pretty much asking this question.[/quote]I really think you've missed the point then. I was asking it because I did not see why it would be a requirement of the narrative or the theme, and I still don't. However, if it's set up as a precursor to a B5-like confrontation with the higher powers, that's perfectly reasonable and valid as a reason.

This is why I asked the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690911' date='Feb 18 2009, 11.13']I really think you've missed the point then. I was asking it because I did not see why it would be a requirement of the narrative or the theme, and I still don't. However, if it's set up as a precursor to a B5-like confrontation with the higher powers, that's perfectly reasonable and valid as a reason.

This is why I asked the question.[/quote]

And if it isn't/wasn't a "set up as a precursor to a B5-like confrontation with the higher powers", on what grounds would you object?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='john' post='1690884' date='Feb 18 2009, 08.37']I think it's more a question of getting whatever we can get and making up reasons for it afterwards. Yeah, status is good, but wealth and land and power is better. Kellhus is just a concentrated version of the human race, except he doesn't bother justifying anything.

And yes, we're pathetic. The real question is, does the fact that we know it count for anything?[/quote]

I don't know about that. Wealth and land and power are are the accoutrements of status as well, no?

I see Kellhus differently. He justifies everything, yes, but he uses truth to do so even if in a disingenuous manner at times. If called on it he'd have a pretty good justification for all of his duplicity if he felt so inclined, I'm sure. That's one of the problems with rationality. I'm yet unsure as to how big a role Bakker's given relativity though.

About knowing counting for anything, I'd speculate it only matters if the knowledge informs a different application? Iono.


ETA: grammar, making thoughts more concise, [i]etc[/i]
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...