White-Luck Warrior

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

But what would she do? There's 0 non-sexual roles aside from 1. peasant 2. witch. And the latter would have gotten you burned alive in the first 3 books. Kellhus legalized witches after the first 3 books, so yeah.

Your imagination is truly bottomless.

The Empress is most certainly a women with agency.

A non-sexualized named woman with agency.

[Kalbear]

I never got the sexism issue. There's 3 women characters in the first 3 books. The Emperor's mother, Serwe and Esmenet. The Emperor's mother is a (male) genetically engineered monster, Serwe was a concubine, and Esmenet was a whore. Not exactly role-model professions for women, but it's not like any of the characters had a choice in the matter. Esmenet and Serwe are both totally reliant on male characters and such, that's true, but Bakker was trying to be realistic about how women would be dealt with in his world. What do people want? A woman warrior like Brienne? She wouldn't last a day in Bakker's world (and in our equivalent, the 1100's). She'd have been raped and murdered on the first page.

Go read the old threads if you like; this was answered ad nauseum. The basic things many would have liked are:

-Women in positions of power in that society that were not genetically engineered monsters or did not use sex to control the men around them

-Women who were not defined solely by their sex appeal to men

-Women who were not objectively viewed as spiritually inferior in the universe

-More than 3 women characters in the entire novel

-a world where only the sexism is emphasized, but almost all other parts are taken directly from history

-a world where rape is not quite so prevalent

-more realized women as characters instead of caricatures and whatnot.

This is where HE pops in and states that this is equivalent to wanting a fantasy world of warrior princesses on unicorns righting all wrongs.

[Shryke]

Really? I didn't notice that she was replaced at any point in the series, I assumed she's been dead for a decade or something.

No. You can tell from the Emperor's thoughts on his mother in TWP that somethign is up with her.

After their first spy gets found out at the end of TDTCB, they have the Empress replaced to take it's place.

A non-sexualized named woman with agency.

Why is that relevant? Hell, why is even the first part relevant?

It's just back to Tokenism. "I demand that X kind of characters appear in every book I read!". I mean, you are free to not like books like that, but it's not a flaw.

And this all seems a little odd in light of your own posts in the other threads about generic stock characters.

[Kalbear]

It's just back to Tokenism. "I demand that X kind of characters appear in every book I read!". I mean, you are free to not like books like that, but it's not a flaw.

No, see, that's the kind of random garbage that HE would espouse. It's not tokenism when there exists not a single woman given a speaking line who isn't sexualized in the series. That it continued into TJE the same way AND in Neuropath - it's a fairly distinct trend. Especially as I said - when the books are so closely based on real historical events, which DO feature non-sexualized women of agency aplenty.

It's not specifically crucial but it's one aspect, and it's a very common one in the world of male-dominated writing.

[Shryke]

No, see, that's the kind of random garbage that HE would espouse. It's not tokenism when there exists not a single woman given a speaking line who isn't sexualized in the series. That it continued into TJE the same way AND in Neuropath - it's a fairly distinct trend. Especially as I said - when the books are so closely based on real historical events, which DO feature non-sexualized women of agency aplenty.

It's not specifically crucial but it's one aspect, and it's a very common one in the world of male-dominated writing.

How is saying that a specific type of character must appear in a specific book not a demand for tokenism?

[jurble]

continued into TJE the same way

What about Kellhus' autistic daughter? The one they kept at the palace with Esmenent and dressed weird. She wasn't sexualized. But maybe it's just because Esmenet's PoV is the one we have...

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Why is that relevant? Hell, why is even the first part relevant?

Sex defines all the female characters. There are no non-sexualized female characters. This is not equally true for the male characters.

It's just back to Tokenism. "I demand that X kind of characters appear in every book I read!". I mean, you are free to not like books like that, but it's not a flaw.

And this all seems a little odd in light of your own posts in the other threads about generic stock characters.

I find it amusing, and somewhat pitiful, that you are confusing a request for non-sexualized female characters who possess agency with stock characters and tokenism. Tokenism is a straw man that you have constructed for this discussion. This discussion is not about tokenism and you know it. It is much easier to fight tokenism than the actual issue. But this discussion should really be saved for another thread. I fear we are veering off-topic and simply revisiting old threads.

[Shryke]

Sex defines all the female characters. There are no non-sexualized female characters. This is not equally true for the male characters.

That doesn't answer the question though: Why is this relevant?

I find it amusing, and somewhat pitiful, that you are confusing a request for non-sexualized female characters who possess agency with stock characters and tokenism. Tokenism is a straw man that you have constructed for this discussion. This discussion is not about tokenism and you know it. It is much easier to fight tokenism than the actual issue. But this discussion should really be saved for another thread. I fear we are veering off-topic and simply revisiting old threads.

Them explain how it isn't. I put the same question to Kalbear.

Why must the book, according to you, contain a character of X type? Why is this necessary? And how is asking for that character not tokenism?

But I guess it's easier to fall back on insults then to actual formulate an argument.

[Ran]

Tokenism is a matter of intent. If all you want is a token character for some nebulous reason, then it's probably tokenism. If what you want is a diversity of portrayals to provide a more nuanced, layered narrative that is more pleasing on all levels, that's really well beyond any kind of tokenism, isn't it?

It's a strange spot for Bakker to be in, to be -- apparently -- on the side of women (I'm not sure I'll call him a feminist, since I think he eschews such phrases) and yet be so very good at turning many of them off from his writing.

[Kalbear]

How is saying that a specific type of character must appear in a specific book not a demand for tokenism?

Actually, it's the opposite. We're saying that the women in Bakker's novels are decidedly tokenized, and it would be good to see at least one non-token woman (and preferably more) somewhere in the books. I don't think asking for a woman with non-sexualized agency is a token, any more than asking for a man with agency would be; they're typically called protagonists in most stories, and saying that's a token request is like asking that not all women in an adaptation of Little Women be portrayed as lesbians is a token request.

What about Kellhus' autistic daughter? The one they kept at the palace with Esmenent and dressed weird. She wasn't sexualized. But maybe it's just because Esmenet's PoV is the one we have...

Yeah, she's got a couple lines and isn't sexualized, that's true. She's just fucked up. There are several women in there that aren't sexualized as minor characters; in that way, TJE has improved. At the same time the new female protagonist is...another whore. And the new female antagonist specifically uses female sexuality as a weapon of her god.

[Happy Ent]

Yes, it makes sense that Bakker portrayed the concubine/whore the way he did, but it's not like they HAD to be concubines/whores, after all, is it?

Oh, according to himself, he made that choice very deliberately, because he wants to problematise gender roles in fiction. So he chose the whore, the harridan, and the slave (or something like that) for his book. (And did, I think, outstanding work with them.) He is extremely conscious about these issues, and wants very much to have them be part of the thematic space of his work.

I guess he’s still a bit shocked at the reception. I, too, certainly lost a lot of respect for many of our fellow boarders who routinely claim to be interested in these issues. One couldn’t know how primitive the level of debate really was before RSB wrote his spectacular books, so in that sense he’s been an eye-opening influence.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That doesn't answer the question though: Why is this relevant?

Because that is what people want. Jurble asked what more people want. And that is what they want in a nutshell - a non-sexualized female character with agency. It is relevant because of the problem below.

Them explain how it isn't. I put the same question to Kalbear.

Why must the book, according to you, contain a character of X type? Why is this necessary? And how is asking for that character not tokenism?

People are not asking for token characters, but the removal of overused stock characters or female characters not defined by their sexuality. The problem is not that the book must contain a female character of X type, but that the book only contains female characters of Y type.This is not a request for token characters. That is not a request for a character of X type. People are not asking for X type, but the presence of characters other than Y type.

Reverse the scenario. What would you think of an author who only used sexualized males in a book?

Oh, according to himself, he made that choice very deliberately, because he wants to problematise gender roles in fiction. So he chose the whore, the harridan, and the slave (or something like that) for his book. (And did, I think, outstanding work with them.) He is extremely conscious about these issues, and wants very much to have them be part of the thematic space of his work.

I guess he’s still a bit shocked at the reception. I, too, certainly lost a lot of respect for many of our fellow boarders who routinely claim to be interested in these issues. One couldn’t know how primitive the level of debate really was before RSB wrote his spectacular books, so in that sense he’s been an eye-opening influence.

Other problematic gender roles exist for women apart from ones defined by sex, especially in the pre-modern period. Do you not think that this is true?

[Kalbear]

Why must the book, according to you, contain a character of X type? Why is this necessary? And how is asking for that character not tokenism?

To answer this specifically - because he's writing about a world, a world very much based on our history, and one way he distinguishes that world from ours is by women having no non-sexualized agency. Point of fact, this is very purposeful by Bakker - he wanted to make a point about premodern cultures and then show the opposite by Kellhus modernizing everyone and giving women the chance to have nonsexualized agency (Serwa, Theliopia are two examples of this). That was one of his goals.

The problem is that he also espouses the premodern view to be realistic to our premodern times, which historically was wrong. As a result this stands out in the same way that having all black men be slaves would stand out to a modern reader. And Bakker specifically stated that he would have been happy to do that specific example but politically he could never have been published.

I guess my view would be best considered this way: if a story is about a very specific subset of people (a group of male warriors or a whorehouse) it's probably not a big deal that both sexes are represented fairly. If a book is about a world, with empires, many different cultures, families, and a huge historical representation - it stands out as an odd bit if there exist no basic archetypes - such as women of non-sexualized agency.

[Mathis Waters]

Oh, according to himself, he made that choice very deliberately, because he wants to problematise gender roles in fiction. So he chose the whore, the harridan, and the slave (or something like that) for his book. (And did, I think, outstanding work with them.) He is extremely conscious about these issues, and wants very much to have them be part of the thematic space of his work.

I guess he’s still a bit shocked at the reception. I, too, certainly lost a lot of respect for many of our fellow boarders who routinely claim to be interested in these issues. One couldn’t know how primitive the level of debate really was before RSB wrote his spectacular books, so in that sense he’s been an eye-opening influence.

This seems a bit bizarre. He wanted to raise gender issues and tweak people's sensibilities, and he obviously succeeded. So why show any shock at this? Isn't a heated debate on women's role in Earwe and the story exactly the intent?

[jurble]

Yeah, she's got a couple lines and isn't sexualized, that's true. She's just fucked up. There are several women in there that aren't sexualized as minor characters; in that way, TJE has improved. At the same time the new female protagonist is...another whore. And the new female antagonist specifically uses female sexuality as a weapon of her god.

The Yatwerians seem to be pretty much copy&paste'd from irl Sumero-Akkadian Temples. Temple Prostitutes were big in ancient Mesopotamia, as were female fertility priests.

[Shryke]

Tokenism is a matter of intent. If all you want is a token character for some nebulous reason, then it's probably tokenism. If what you want is a diversity of portrayals to provide a more nuanced, layered narrative that is more pleasing on all levels, that's really well beyond any kind of tokenism, isn't it?

I don't see the difference here Ran. Or rather, I think your inclusion of "nebulous" is unneeded and, if removed, it becomes more clear.

I would describe tokenism (from the readers perspective, so more the demand for tokenism) as the desire for a character of X type to appear in the work ... simply because you want a character of type X to appear in the work.

Which is why I bring up the question of relevance: Why? Why does it matter? Why is it needed? What purpose would it serve beyond simply satisfying the reader's desire for that type of character to appear?

If there's a hole in the narrative, of sorts, that would make sense, but that's not what I'm seeing here.

I can certainly see the desire for this as a personal preference, but that's more a statement about the reader then the book. It's like if I was a young girl and really wanted to read about other young girls doing cool things because that's cool. Now, because of this, I might not like Harry Potter. Because the main character and hero is a boy and boys are smelly. But that's simply a matter of my own taste and preference and not a complaint about the Harry Potter series.

[Kalbear]

I guess he’s still a bit shocked at the reception. I, too, certainly lost a lot of respect for many of our fellow boarders who routinely claim to be interested in these issues. One couldn’t know how primitive the level of debate really was before RSB wrote his spectacular books, so in that sense he’s been an eye-opening influence.

Right, because we've never talked about gender roles before Bakker. All hail Bakker! Thank goodness he was such a sexist prick, because without him we would have only talked about how awesome warrior women were and how realistic they were!

This seems a bit bizarre. He wanted to raise gender issues and tweak people's sensibilities, and he obviously succeeded. So why show any shock at this? Isn't a heated debate on women's role in Earwe and the story exactly the intent?

I think he was mostly shocked at the animosity and personal vitriol he received. I think he expected everyone to simply read it, understand that it was a parable about premodern views of sexism vs. modern views (and how modernity was an artificial uplift of women), and sagely nod while being slightly uncomfortable of all the jutting phalluses and whatnot.

I think he didn't expect so many of his readers - especially women - being actively uncomfortable because of the pure sexism in the world and the way women were represented and treated and simply choose to stop reading it due to that facet. I think he expected those kinds of readers to actively embrace it as a feminist triumph instead of vilify it as an overt work of sexism.

I also think that he didn't expect so many of his readers to actively be trying to argue against the notions of sexism in the book and argue that it was realistic, great, and really showed what women were like back then (and how awesome Kellhus was). That was Eef's great argument about the Archie Bunker effect.

[Ran]

It's a piss-poor pro-woman polemic that chases away most all the women and engenders the exact opposite mentality in some of the men (thanks for the reminder, Kal, of Eefa's point -- I forgot we had people defending Bakker's choices as purely based on historical fact and no one should care, blah blah)

[Shryke]

Actually, it's the opposite. We're saying that the women in Bakker's novels are decidedly tokenized, and it would be good to see at least one non-token woman (and preferably more) somewhere in the books. I don't think asking for a woman with non-sexualized agency is a token, any more than asking for a man with agency would be; they're typically called protagonists in most stories, and saying that's a token request is like asking that not all women in an adaptation of Little Women be portrayed as lesbians is a token request.

But the series already has protagonists. Even female ones.

You are asking for a specific type of protagonist ... why?

Because that is what people want. Jurble asked what more people want. And that is what they want in a nutshell - a non-sexualized female character with agency. It is relevant because of the problem below.

Yes, he was asking what people wanted in relation to the accusations of sexism. The context is very important here. The implication was, Bakker (or his work at the least) was sexist because it didn't contain X. (with X here being apparently "non-sexualized female character with agency") And that he/it wouldn't be sexist if he'd done that.

Again, the accusation depends wholy on the fact that his book SHOULD contain X. And my question is, again, why? Why does it have to?

People are not asking for token characters, but the removal of overused stock characters or female characters not defined by their sexuality. The problem is not that the book must contain a female character of X type, but that the book only contains female characters of Y type.This is not a request for token characters. That is not a request for a character of X type. People are not asking for X type, but the presence of characters other than Y type.

Yes they are. You just did it. Shit, you repeated it above. You want female character of X type in the book.

Reverse the scenario. What would you think of an author who only used sexualized males in a book?

That would depend on the work itself, now wouldn't it? Which is what I've been saying all along. Given your example, I would find the demand for a non-sexualised male, simply on the grounds that I wanted a non-sexualized male in the book, stupid. I'd want a reason beyond tokenism.

[Kalbear]

I can certainly see the desire for this as a personal preference, but that's more a statement about the reader then the book. It's like if I was a young girl and really wanted to read about other young girls doing cool things because that's cool. Now, because of this, I might not like Harry Potter. Because the main character and hero is a boy and boys are smelly. But that's simply a matter of my own taste and preference and not a complaint about the Harry Potter series.

Okay, let's go with that.

Now for Harry Potter, let's remove basically all reference to any women of speaking roles save three. One is Harry's friend early on, who has muggle parents, low self esteem and as a result sleeps with basically anyone who does well at Quiddich, or scores well on classes, or can get her any kind of leg up. Her name is Hermionet.

Then we have the girl that Harry really wants; he falls for her almost instantly. She is gorgeous beyond belief but completely self-centered, fairly dull, and only interested in Severhus who she believes to be her real salvation. She does end up sleeping with Harry but (as it turns out) only because Severhus manipulated her into doing so to confuse Harry and give up secrets of the Hordate. Her name is Ginwa.

Finally, we have the old witch of the school, who has been teaching there for longer than anyone can remember. She has Dumbledore (her son) wrapped around her pinky because she molested him as a child and continued to have sex with him long into adulthood, after his father died. She controls much of the politics of the school and chooses who gets promotions, and is hinted to be not a woman but a hideous creation from the dread lord Voldemang and his legions of Inch Eaters. Her name is Minervrya McGonnagal.

And those are the only three women in the entire first three books with any speaking roles. There are no mention of other women teachers. There are only casual mention of other female students. Now, for a book set in a school, wouldn't that strike you as a bit odd?