Jump to content

Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)


JGP

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1693139' date='Feb 19 2009, 18.46']Science has largely robbed the world of the answer to the question 'why', and it's one that humans like asking.[/quote]

I must register my disagreement over this sentiment, though I suspect a long and protracted discussion to sort out what is meant in that line would be prudent. That's for another thread, and I don't want to derail this one. Just thought I'd register a point of disagreement.


Re: Soph

Nice posts. Not a whole lot to add yet, but I am enjoying reading them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693141' date='Feb 19 2009, 16.49']I think what science has done is made the 'why' a bit different, not robbed us of it. We have a pretty good explanation of why, its just a stark contrast to the old why. I think the new why of our origins and of where we are going is pretty nice (to me it highlights our enormous potential), but many do not. Were in transition perhaps, who know, maybe we will go back to more supernatural bollocks too, we're biologically geared to believe it after all.[/quote]Eh. To me, why implies intent. Purpose. Science has shown again and again that there isn't this purpose inherent in the universe. We understand how a star goes supernova, but there's no why behind it, no reason that it should when another doesn't other than the inevitable probability of quantum mechanics and entropy ganging up on it. We don't have a why behind the origins of humanity (and barely a how, honestly), just a how. The best for origins we have is tautological at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1693153' date='Feb 20 2009, 11.55']We don't have a why behind the origins of humanity (and barely a how, honestly), just a how.[/quote]

We do have a why, mountains of why in fact. There are gaps, but caves in the mountain doesn't stop it being a mountain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693158' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.01']We do have a why, mountains of why in fact. There are gaps, but caves in the mountain doesn't stop it being a mountain.[/quote]

Your still confusing "Why" with "How" though.

But as TP said, this is fairly off-topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693151' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.53']I must register my disagreement over this sentiment, though I suspect a long and protracted discussion to sort out what is meant in that line would be prudent. That's for another thread, and I don't want to derail this one. Just thought I'd register a point of disagreement.[/quote]It could be argued that science has largely robbed humanity from the simple, transcendent anthropomorphic answer (i.e. God-given).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1693162' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.04']Your still confusing "Why" with "How" though.[/quote]

The why and the how are different? Why and how?

This of course is getting pretty off topic but look forward from the boring old physics and at the evolution. The coming of the universe and its implied meaningless does not rob us of purpose, or give us purpose. Our evolution [i]does[/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sophelia' post='1693126' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.36']OK, now I want to get back to point (2), and the crux of why women may feel alienated (or in my case why I disliked the decisions Scott made about women, however careful and well-motivated they were). This is going to take me a few posts.

First, to go back to (1) the way women are depicted in fantasy generally, Scott has now realised that many of us (people who notice such things) have mental checklists of the kind of things we are used to seeing in fantasy. We have the evil overlord list, we have the Tough Guide to Fantasyland, and we have our lists of ‘annoying ways women are represented in fantasy’.

First we have the original ‘sexist’ fantasy. This is an example of what my list might look like:
[list]
[*] men can be great or tragic figures, and badass characters for readers to admire and envy and identify with (unlike women)
[*] overthrowing the evil threat requires men because it involves fighting
[*] women are not very interesting (unlike men)
[*] women are only included as love/sex interests for the men
[*] men place women in terrible circumstances (usually for sexually motivated purposes)
[*] women need to be protected and/or rescued by men from their terrible circumstances
[*] the most satisfactory story arc for any woman is marriage
[*] beautiful young women are suited to play a central role in the story, whereas the plainer/older a woman is the less likely she is to have an important role in the story
[*] attractive women are sweet and kind and naïve, whereas attractive men are good fighters who lose their tempers when they see injustices
[*] the only mistakes women make are to trust the wrong men, while men tend to make mistakes of pride and temper
[/list]

Notice how many of these are ticked by PoN. Notice how few of them can be removed solely by the rationale that the author was deliberately trying to create a sexist and authentic world.

Instead the author justifies the ticky boxes by setting, theme, and personal belief about human nature. Which is exactly the same justification that all of the other authors will have used. It becomes annoying by the cumulative frequency and Bakker will lose readers, as he said, due to 'the mysogyny that came before'.

Because of the protests, many modern authors have tried to avoid accusations of sexism by trying to include female characters that will satisfy the modern (often female) readership. I believe many authors have a very crude idea about what women or ‘feminists’ want to counter these traditions. That is, they assume feminists want ‘PC’ women in fantasy. This has led to a second wave of ‘annoying ways women are represented in fantasy’(the ‘token woman’ backlash):
[list]
[*] special effort to include women so that the setting is not all-male
[*] women who are empowered e.g. possessing some power over men, or having unique artisan skills which are in demand
[*] women warriors who can beat men
[*] women who answer back cheekily
[*] women who sneer at men
[*] women who are ‘feisty’
[*] women who are sexually uninhibited (in a medieval world without contraceptives)
[/list]
Many authors (and readers) are rather horrified at the idea of being pressured to include these type of women (with the exception of the last, for some reason :leer: ), since they would be unrealistic in the faux-medieval world.



But what many of us don’t understand is why people assume that being more creative in largely avoiding the first list means we want the second list. We don’t.

We are not asking for 'PC orthodox representations of women'. The question of worlds is an interesting one: I don't believe that any modern novel could or should be trying to be totally authentic. However there needs to be enough authenticity to make it meaningful and poignant. I do think every author has to walk a fine line between realism and symbolism (if that's the right word). I think it will take me a few more posts to express what I mean...[/quote]

How does one avoid the 1st list without stubbling into the 2nd again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693164' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.06']The why and the how are different? Why and how?[/quote]

Because one is a question of purpose and one is a question of mechanics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1693168' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.08']How does one avoid the 1st list without stubbling into the 2nd again?[/quote]

Write about real women. Part 1 didn't really list them, nor did part 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1693169' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.09']Because one is a question of purpose and one is a question of mechanics.[/quote]

Why does Z work? Because of X and Y.

Is our purpose divorced from our mechanics?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693170' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.10']Write about real women. Part 1 didn't really list them, nor did part 2.[/quote]

And if real women wouldn't be a major player in the story your telling?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]How does one avoid the 1st list without stubbling into the 2nd again?[/quote]It's not too hard; Martin does it fairly successfully all over the place, for instance (though Brienne is clearly a 'warrior woman who can beat men' stereotype, I think she works in other ways). Buffy the Vampire Slayer does this to some success and some failure too.

[quote]Is our purpose divorced from our mechanics?[/quote]Not any more, but most humans don't like to think that they're doing things because they were mechanically driven to; they want agency. But again, probably a better topic for somewhere else.

[quote]And if real women wouldn't be a major player in the story your telling?[/quote]What, like a marine corps recon regiment? Really depends on the setting. If you go out of your way to avoid them even though (for example) the historical analogues to the story would have them, it's bad. If you don't have them even though realistically they'd be around, it's bad. If you don't have them because the historical analogues or the actual events didn't have them, that's probably okay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693172' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.11']Why does Z work? Because of X and Y.

Is our purpose divorced from our mechanics?[/quote]Why do we live a good life? How do we live a good life? The implications of how and why would even be different in your example. But playing language games and grasping at semantics is rather irrelevant to the overall discussion in place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1693179' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.15']It's not too hard; Martin does it fairly successfully all over the place, for instance (though Brienne is clearly a 'warrior woman who can beat men' stereotype, I think she works in other ways). Buffy the Vampire Slayer does this to some success and some failure too.

What, like a marine corps recon regiment? Really depends on the setting. If you go out of your way to avoid them even though (for example) the historical analogues to the story would have them, it's bad. If you don't have them even though realistically they'd be around, it's bad. If you don't have them because the historical analogues or the actual events didn't have them, that's probably okay.[/quote]

I'd say Buffy (the character) on her own hits like half of the second list. Martin hits some too, as you point out.


The point is, if yur so gun-ho on keeping list 2 (ie - avoiding token women characters), then your gonna run into plenty of cases (especially in pre-modern settings) where women just won't be around that much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693183' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.17']Why do we live a good life? How do we live a good life? The implications of how and why would even be different in your example. But playing language games and grasping at semantics is rather irrelevant to the overall discussion in place.[/quote]

Thats better, but to explain the why you are implicitly wanting to know the how. The why is just asking how did something come to be and science hasn't robbed us of it. Thats my point. Why are we here is just the same, we just don't need the god bomb as an explanation.

And kalbear I agree, most people don't want to think that they are a product of their mechanics. Like I said its a very new thing for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693189' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.26']Thats better, but to explain the why you are implicitly wanting to know the how. The why is just asking how did something come to be and science hasn't robbed us of it. Thats my point. Why are we here is just the same, we just don't need the god bomb as an explanation.[/quote]The question "Why did she open the door?" does not leave me implicitly wanting to know how she opened the door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693196' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.35']The question "Why did she open the door?" does not leave me implicitly wanting to know how she opened the door.[/quote]

No, but it means you want to know the mechanisms that led to her wanting to open the door, the reasons. Perhaps she is opening the door for you because its advantageous to a species if they have a predisposition for helping one another for instance, or maybe she thinks you're a cutie patootie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1693211' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.53']No, but it means you want to know the mechanisms that led to her wanting to open the door, the reasons.[/quote]Reasons, yes, but what mechanisms? But this is still not a question answered by 'how' which was the point I made. There is a clear semantic difference in the two questions. Furthermore, one can know [i]how[/i] something works without knowing [i]why[/i] it works. While there may be overlap in the answers provided by the two questions, there is still a semantic distinction. Furthermore, answering why may leave one wanting to know how, but answering one does not necessarily require one to answer both questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1692977' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.54']Simple enough, I see both quotes as making analogies about how it was like to live in the olden days, where all sorts of things were thought to be natural law. The first one about the uranium is explicitly and analogy and the second one a little more specific, in its case its even saying that in the world of our ancestors spiritual value was objective. You and I both know that this objectivity was incorrect.

I think were going round n round in circles here now.


Really enjoyed the past few pages discussion on justice coming about for the wrong reasons, and in the end it's still justice.[/quote]

i still don't see this as clear. the quote is:

"Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. 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. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others. "

even if he was speaking directly to the role of women in Earwa he says "Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others". biblical israel was not a place where value was objective, where the social and spiritual inferiority was "a fact like the atomic weight of uranium", it was a time/place where it may have been THOUGHT that the spiritual inferiority of women was "a fact like the atomic weight of uranium", which is to say that if Earwa is like biblical israel in that respect then Earwa too would be a place where that value is [i]percieved[/i] to be objective but [i]really is not[/i], which is how i (perhaps mis)understood it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1693168' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.08']How does one avoid the 1st list without stubbling into the 2nd again?[/quote]

by including female characters whose roles are based on the sorts of roles historically empowered women did have, i suppose. empresses and queens are probably the easiest to think of. sorceresses. politically savvy female "powers behind the throne". even female war leaders (boudicca, j-o-a) do not shout PC ADDITION!!! like a sword-wielding hot-chick assassin with tattoos on her lithe limbs or whatever.

largely a matter of taste though, what sets off those alarm bells i mean
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...