Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)

[TerraPrime]

I wasn't really paying attention to this until I had to start moderating it. So here's my take on this. To preface, I've only read the first 2, and found them enjoyable. No immediate plan to go read the next 2, since I've pretty much stopped reading for fun nowadays.

I'm of the mind that we ought to give authors (and musicians, and film makers, etc.) some leeway in creating material that are, by our standards, over-the-top and offensive. It's possible that they are trying to make a point. Look at the films by Tarantino. I think his use of violence was definitely over-the-top, but we don't necessarily go around condemning him for his approval of violence. We can see that the films are his form of making a statement. So too, I think, we can look at the extreme sexism in PoN series as a statement from the author about sexism and feminism, without attributing any of these ideas to the man himself. The man is not the work, imo.

Now, of course, in some cases, we know that the man [b]is[/b] the work, like, say, Goodkind. In Bakker's case, the jury is still out, as far as I am concerned.

Nevertheless, I think it's legitimate to question the literary choices that Bakker made in constructing his world and in delivering his message (whatever that may be, and incomplete as it may be by book 4 of 9). Some are put off by the sexual violence and the put-down of women in the series. At this point, I think it's a wait-and-see-if-there-is-a-point-to-all-this for me. The author himself has not so subtly stated that things will change. Whether this change that is a-coming will redeem these literary choices or not, we will have to RAFO. Of course, some readers have already reached the tipping point and literally, nothing that can happen in books 5 to 9 can possibly redeem what had happened in books 1 to 4. Those are choices that each reader must make.

On that line of thought, I can't help but think that it is a bit of a short-coming on the author's part to not give his readers enough reward to entice them to stay on the train for this dark journey. If you want someone to take a plunge, you gotta give them some lifeline, imo. Take Arya's case, for instance. She's venturing into some very dark places, what with learning to kill without passion and to kill on order. Most of us are willing to go along for the ride because we see some hope that she might just be strong enough to use them instead and keep her sanity in the bargain. Without that hope, the Arya chapters would be very difficult to read, imo. So in this case, if the author wants the readers to get submerged into a fantastical setting where women are objectively inferior, he really needs to give us a few more rays of hope, even if he never plans on delivering on those hopes.

I also see some parallel between Sansa and the world of Earwa, in that both are constructs made to showcase a point. In Sansa's case, Martin is showcasing the short-comings of the romanticism of courtly love. In Earwa's case, Bakker is showcasing the short-comings of sexism derived from religions. In both cases, many readers find it impossible to like the construct, and yet, quite a few still do, for various reasons.

Out of all of this, I think what troubles me the most was actually the reactions of some of the readers to the tune of the Archie Bunker phenomenon that someone brought up earlier. I think, with clarification from the author, no less, that it's clear that some of the elements of the story are indeed overtly sexist, and that they are meant to make a point in being so overtly sexist. Given that, some of the responses that argue otherwise, that there's no sexism in the books, or that particular instances of events in the books are not sexist, now those type of reactions trouble me more than what the author's intentions are or whether he managed to execute his intentions adroitly or not.

[JoannaL]

[quote]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.[/quote]


[quote name='Shryke' post='1690888' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.42']Anyone asking "Why does the world of Earwa have to hold women as inferior to men?" is pretty much asking this question.[/quote]

If that was the question there would be no problem. If the women in Earwa were only treated as inferior or decreed as inferior by existing or non-existing Earwa gods that would be fine. I do not need any empowered woman in a book to enjoy it. And yes it would mean the Earwa Gods or God were 'evil' (as in having the 'wrong 'ethics) Interesting question, but beside the point because the real problem is

[b]the women in Earwa ARE inferior.[/b]

Two possibilities here:
In Earwa the women are inferior (made by a Earwa god that way or for whatever reason) while normal women in the normal world are different
which would mean there is no meaning out of this book which the reader can take into the real world (one has to read all this sex and violence for nothing) and the question above was not ask (it is right to treat someone as inferior if he is inferior)

or the women in Earwa are described as normal woman just in a very hostile surrounding. In this case the book is just sexist bcause of the objective inferiority and the question above is just irrelevant.

[Shryke]

[quote name='JoannaL' post='1690953' date='Feb 18 2009, 11.58']If that was the question there would be no problem. If the women in Earwa were only treated as inferior or decreed as inferior by existing or non-existing Earwa gods that would be fine. I do not need any empowered woman in a book to enjoy it. And yes it would mean the Earwa Gods or God were 'evil' (as in having the 'wrong 'ethics) Interesting question, but beside the point because the real problem is

[b]the women in Earwa ARE inferior.[/b]

Two possibilities here:
In Earwa the women are inferior (made by a Earwa god that way or for whatever reason) while normal women in the normal world are different
which would mean there is no meaning out of this book which the reader can take into the real world (one has to read all this sex and violence for nothing) and the question above was not ask (it is right to treat someone as inferior if he is inferior)

or the women in Earwa are described as normal woman just in a very hostile surrounding. In this case the book is just sexist bcause of the objective inferiority and the question above is just irrelevant.[/quote]

I don't understand your point here.

In the world of Earwa, it appears that women are objectively "spiritually inferior", the same way Sorcerers are objectively "Damned to burn forever in Hell".

No one that I'm aware of (including the author) has ever claimed this applies in the real world.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1690966' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.12']I don't understand your point here.

In the world of Earwa, it appears that women are objectively "spiritually inferior", the same way Sorcerers are objectively "Damned to burn forever in Hell".

No one that I'm aware of (including the author) has ever claimed this applies in the real world.[/quote]The damnation of sorcerers to hell for all eternity applies in the real world. There. Happy? :P

[Ealdorman Halasahr]

Kalbear wrote:
"But yes, I'm giving one counterexample, because that's really all it takes to say 'no, that is wrong'. China had an early history of matriarchal societies (in the Banpo dig) that predates Sumer, for instance. They obviously switched to a more patriarchal society at some point (likely before Sumer did), but being able to say 'and that's because they got the research points to discover animal and human husbandry'?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I got a bit curious of your comment on the Banpo culture (or archeological site near Xian, in China) being matriarchal. As far as I know, there is a not so many findings truly supporting the theory of this culture being a matriarchy. And during all my years (not as many as it may sound, only a Masters Degree, and a fieldwork in China) studying anthropolgy at a Swedish university, I've never stumbled across an actual matriarchal society - it's simply a myth (so far, at least). The closest thing of a real matriarchal culture is - ironically also located in China - the Mosu (or Mosuo) in the southwestern parts of the country, but it's never been established as a fact. The Mosu is indeed a matrilineal culture where women are heads of the family (but that alone doesn't qualify for the society as such being matriarchal). Due to the lack of historical evidence, I guess we'll never know for sure.

Another aspect regarding the Banpo culture is that ones has to put the diggings and the findings in (mostly) the 1950s in some kind of historical context. This was Communist-China, not to forget, and the leaders advocated a society where women were equal to men, when the young family member were equal to the elders, and so forth. My point being, Mao and the rest of the crew might have used the idea of a matriarchy for political reasons, and control etcetera.
Anyway, hope you'll find my views somewhat constructive (and informative).

The stuff mentioned above has really nothing to with a man named Bakker, has it?
I think not.
However, I do have an opinion about his world, too :). Or at least the controversy/debate on it.
The way I see it, if - and it's a big f*^king if - Mr Bakker wanted to (and I think he has stated as much himself) start some kind of debate on the issue of the oppression/objectification on women, he's done a marvellous job, hasn't he? I've read a number of constructive insights on this very thread on the matter. And the discussion is still taking place ...
But - and it's a big frakking but - I'm still disturbed when I cannot find any reason or explanations in his world WHY the women in it are being oppressed and somewhat objectified. If it can be motivated, then I might be able to understand it.
Another disturbing thing on the issue is that I've heard (which is a very weak basis of an argument, I know; but it was a friend who told me that) Bakker's "Neuropath" portray women in basically the same one-dimensional way as in the PoN-trilogy.
If Mr Bakker is using a general theme or not, I don't know, but if he does, then why have so many of us failed to see/understand it? Maybe he's über-smart, and I'm not. Maybe he's an artist misunderstood, and I'm just too average. I really can't say.
So, will I continue reading PoN (I'm in the middle of part two)? Don't know that either. There are a few books I "need" to read before that, and in all of them women are portrayed as good and bad, nice and mean, and the rest in between, but not necessarily as women having to use sex as a tool to get/achieve what they want (that is, their pretty much portrayed as [u]persons[/u], just like the men even in Bakker's works). In all fairness to R Scott Bakker: I don't think he's the only one portraying women one-dimensionally; there are many, many writers out there whom in the works are using women as trinkets for the male hero to toy with. (And maybe, at the end of the day, we're all just a little bit jealous of Bakker and his successful career as a writer, who knows?) :)

[john]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1690911' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.13']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.[/quote]

But the scenes of rape and abuse would still be there, the unflattering portrayal of women would still be there, regardless of whether Kellhus kicks god's ass for allowing it. So you would still have a problem with it, right? That would just clear up the spiritually inferior thing.

I don't think it needs a B5 style confrontation. All it needs is for the relevant characters to deal with it somehow (specifically Esme since Kellhus and Akka are going to be more concerned with the sorcerors damnation). That's ineveitable, it's demanded by the story so I don't see why you would doubt it for a second.


[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1690923' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.29']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.[/quote]

That's true but it's not a case of deciding beforehand you have more status and taking what you want from people with less. It's about wanting more stuff, taking it and only then saying "well those guys are inferior so they deserved to be trashed."

Kellhus only has two goals. He wants to meet his dad and he wants to preserve the Dunyain experiment. Everything he does is for that. There's no logic behind it other than he wants to and he can. Of course, then he discovers he's the avatar of the god, which changes things a bit.


[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1690941' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.48']On that line of thought, I can't help but think that it is a bit of a short-coming on the author's part to not give his readers enough reward to entice them to stay on the train for this dark journey. If you want someone to take a plunge, you gotta give them some lifeline, imo.[/quote]

I think this is fair. I also think Bakker has tried to reward his readers when it comes to the gender issues. Use and abuse is not the be all and end all of Esme's story. However, probably he could have done more.



ETA - I should probably add that I haven't read TJE, and I keep mentioning Kellhus, although I seem to remember that he's not so much the focus of the second series.

[john]

[quote name='JoannaL' post='1690953' date='Feb 18 2009, 16.58']In Earwa the women are inferior (made by a Earwa god that way or for whatever reason) while normal women in the normal world are different
which would mean there is no meaning out of this book which the reader can take into the real world (one has to read all this sex and violence for nothing)[/quote]

That's exactly what you can take out of it. Normal women in the normal world are different, so why are they generally treated as if they are inferior?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Ealdorman Halasahr' post='1690972' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.16']But - and it's a big frakking but - I'm still disturbed when I cannot find any reason or explanations in his world WHY the women in it are being oppressed and somewhat objectified.[/quote]Again, this is why I find Earwe fascinating. We have no damn reason or explanation for why the God of the Outside would establish women as being spiritually and socially inferior. It pains (some more than others) our own modern moral sensibilities and experiences. The idea that women would or could be objectively inferior with men goes against the ideals of the modern world. It is aggravating and frustrating reading through this world. At times I just want to shout out about the injustice of the world of Earwe. But there is also no damn explanation or justification for the frequently implicit social and spiritual inferiority of women by the God in the Bible. It can be absolutely ridiculous, and I think that is in some small part what we are supposed to walk away feeling when reading the Prince of Nothing.

Also, I would have probably liked to have seen the gender issues of the Fanim and how the treatment of male and female status differed in their culture.

[JGP]

[quote name='john' post='1690979' date='Feb 18 2009, 10.20']That's true but it's not a case of deciding beforehand you have more status and taking what you want from people with less. It's about wanting more stuff, taking it and only then saying "well those guys are inferior so they deserved to be trashed."

Kellhus only has two goals. He wants to meet his dad and he wants to preserve the Dunyain experiment. Everything he does is for that. There's no logic behind it other than he wants to and he can. Of course, then he discovers he's the avatar of the god, which changes things a bit.[/quote]

I [i]remember[/i]... [checks cloak of faces]

:P

More seriously, something of your post reminded me of a Neuropath thread way back in the day, and I remembered you. You're back into the neurological premise of the zombie-mind thing. I don't [i]entirely[/i] disagree. 'Wanting more stuff' though, as you say, is still a retroactive justification at face value if we don't understand ~how~ we could've wanted it before we knew ~why~

Hmn...

I have to blast. This thread has actually began to impact my work. Back later.

[Ealdorman Halasahr]

[quote name='MinDonner' date='Feb 17 2009, 23.22' post='1689915']
<----- 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.

:)
Excellent point. However, you shouldn't bow before us at all. You should kick us were it really hurts (and believe me, you don't have to kick hard) and tell us to shut up.

I think it's a good thing to debate these large questions, though, wouldn't you agree? I mean, we'll all be gaining in making the world a more equal place, no? Whether this fantastic ambition takes place on this very thread or not, I really can't say.

[john]

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1690996' date='Feb 18 2009, 17.33']More seriously, something of your post reminded me of a Neuropath thread way back in the day, and I remembered you. You're back into the neurological premise of the zombie-mind thing. I don't [i]entirely[/i] disagree. 'Wanting more stuff' though, as you say, is still a retroactive justification at face value if we don't understand ~how~ we could've wanted it before we knew ~why~[/quote]

Heh. I'm glad your status anxiety ponderings are helping to bring you round to the zombie-mind way of thinking. It's true that it's a retroactive justification but I tried to dial it down to the simplest motive that could retroactively occur. If i let my subconscious mind type it - jkllh\ jo jljdd - doesn't come up with anything useful (although there is a lot of j's in there :|). The plus side of the retroactive mind is that it lets us try and fix things. I do hope there's some sort of genuine desire for equality in there, and not just a bunch of petty social factors.

[john]

[quote name='Ealdorman Halasahr' post='1690998' date='Feb 18 2009, 17.34'][quote name='MinDonner' post='1689915' date='Feb 17 2009, 23.22']
<----- 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.[/quote]

:)
Excellent point. However, you shouldn't bow before us at all. You should kick us were it really hurts (and believe me, you don't have to kick hard) and tell us to shut up.
[/quote]

Ouch, I missed that from before. Hey Min, you can kick me in the balls too, do i get a wee exemption star like Kal? :thumbsup:

I would like to hear from more women, since the one thing this thread's proved is that there is a real problem.

[Filippa Eilhart]

[quote]I would like to hear from more women[/quote]

I like books about princesses and love stories :)

[needle]

No unicorns, flip?

[Filippa Eilhart]

they're not essential.

[Balefont]

[quote name='john' post='1691029' date='Feb 18 2009, 13.05']I would like to hear from more women, since the one thing this thread's proved is that there is a real problem.[/quote]

I'm in the "I take the story at pretty much face value, enjoyed it in the sense that it was dark and uncomfortable which makes me glad my life isn't, and I wanna have Kellhus' babies" camp, myself. Can't speak for all the other wimmins.

[Ealdorman Halasahr]

Good evening, Matrim Fox Cauthon!

I think you're right when you write that a story like the one in PoN makes people feel something. I feel a lot, and it makes me think, which I like :) And I do like the dark and gritty world of Earwa(?) in many ways.
However, if you compare, say, "Rome" (the BBC/HBO-series, which I hope you've seen) with PoN, if such a comparison is possible, I think I understand the Woman better in the TV-series than in Bakker's world. In "Rome" everything made sense, if you know what I mean. The social hierarchy was motivated somehow, and justified within the logics of that world itself (which is what a world-building author need to strive for). That doesn't mean one has to like the way the society per se was (or even why an individual character was the way she/he was), but it gives everything a more credible foundation.
That said, I'm obviously not an expert on ancient Rome, or anything like that, but I can relate to "Rome" in a way I can't when it comes to PoN, for instance.

My point being, one has to understand the logics (Logos?:)) of a world in order to be able to understand the world itself, and therefore also the people living in it, and why they behave the way they behave. That doesn't mean I have to understand everything about the world, or everything about the characters driving force or motivations. Just enough to be able to maintain my own illusion of this or that world I'm reading about, and investing time in when sitting in my sofa reading it. It simply should make sense, and Earwa regarding women (and some of the motivations/driving forces behind the monk order of Kellhus', but that's another story) doesn't.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1690990' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.29']Again, this is why I find Earwe fascinating. We have no damn reason or explanation for why the God of the Outside would establish women as being spiritually and socially inferior. It pains (some more than others) our own modern moral sensibilities and experiences. The idea that women would or could be objectively inferior with men goes against the ideals of the modern world. It is aggravating and frustrating reading through this world. At times I just want to shout out about the injustice of the world of Earwe. [b]But there is also no damn explanation or justification for the frequently implicit social and spiritual inferiority of women by the God in the Bible.[/b] It can be absolutely ridiculous, and I think that is in some small part what we are supposed to walk away feeling when reading the Prince of Nothing.[/quote]

This is kinda the point I've been thinking about. (Which I figured you'd get, from your posts in any of the religion threads in Gen Chat.)

AFAIK people from way back when didn't really think of the world as orderly. Not the same way we do.

It rains because the sky felt like, because God is taking a piss, or just because. Shit was random in some fashion. That A follows from B is not something they would consider. Causality not exactly big on their list of ideas.

Hence the power of the Logos.

[JoannaL]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1690966' date='Feb 18 2009, 18.12']I don't understand your point here.

In the world of Earwa, it appears that women are objectively "spiritually inferior", the same way Sorcerers are objectively "Damned to burn forever in Hell".

No one that I'm aware of (including the author) has ever claimed this applies in the real world.[/quote]
The point is that woman in Earwa are not only 'spiritually inferior' but generally inferior. The are intellectually and emotionally inferior to normal human beings. Now don't start the 'but Esme is soo smart argument'. She is an exemption n Earwa and besides she is still no match to any of the male lead characters intelligent-wise.

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1690805' date='Feb 18 2009, 05.51']Simply unbelieveable.[/quote]
And yet every time it seems as if these threads are going to calm down, you arrive to goose things along a bit. I'm beginning to suspect that you have a bet with someone about the number of "Bakker and Women" threads you (and we) can generate. Double digits? :/

I have to confess that I don't understand your stance within these threads. It seems as if you wanted to challenge people's modern preconceptions about gender (as well as other things) in the series, and so this would seem to be, more or less, the discussion you wanted.

It would make a lot more sense to me if you were responding to your "defenders" by saying things like: Thanks for the defense, poster x, but these gender issues aren't simply a natural outgrowth of my worldbuilding. I could have gone in a number of different directions, emphasized a variety of things, but I chose to tweak contemporary reader's gender politics. Read how you will, of course, but the people focusing on these things are responding to something that, to the author's mind, is really there in the text.

Or, if you were really concerned with the "Archie Bunker effect," you might intervene with those readers who shrug off the gender issues of Earwa as incidental and not that big a deal. Clearly, they do seem to be a big deal to you.

And to those people asking hard questions about the effects of gender representation, you might say: Thanks gang :thumbsup:, this is what I was looking for when I put these inflammatory issues center-stage of my series.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1690805' date='Feb 18 2009, 05.51']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.[/quote]

Well, if I understand what you're saying here, this seems to me to be very different than asking "what if the fundamentalists are right?" For fundamentalists, there is no distinction between god and truth. If Earwa is truly a world of "moral certainty and solidarity - a world where everything and everyone finds themselves ranked in order of value" then there is no "outside" (pardon the term) to that.

If, on the other hand, we just have a deity or deities who just happen to be fundamentalist asshats and aren't necessarily right about how things *really are*, then we're back to modern skepticism and uncertainty - just at one remove. This is certainly interesting and fine with me, but I don't see how a world with a fundamentalist deity who has no more claim to truth than anyone else is different than the so-called conventional fantasy you seem to object to.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1690805' date='Feb 18 2009, 05.51']Now are people really suggesting this question shouldn't be asked in narrative form?[/quote]

No, of course, not. We're asking how this all works, what the larger points might be, and what effects these representations might have on readers. And we're also asking how successful the author has been in showing the reader how this all works, what the larger points might be, especially given the effects these representations might have on readers.