Women, Men, SFF part deux

[Happy Ent]

How can Esmi ever be a despicable character? I don’t get it.

The only two half-way decent major characters in the books are Esmi and Mim. I really like Acka (but I could understand that somebody despises him), and Proyas probably qualifies as decent and Lawful Good as well.

To me, despising Esmi is as mystifying as despising Catelyn Stark. I have no idea where that comes from. Honestly.

(Sorweel may be not completely despicable as well.)

[Happy Ent]

[…]what if sexism is entirely a biological construct, men cannot alter it, and humans are hard wired for it.

There is doubt about that? I thought this was obviously true. (Though I wouldn’t use “entirely”.)

Very interesting. Our priors seem to be farther and farther from each other.

[Shryke]

What? Bakker doing it himself?

Wha?

Kellhus telling Esmenet what she should and should not think about her own place in society IS the manipulation. He's opening her eyes to the inequalities of the world she inhabits in a controlled setting in order to make her more pliable. It's what he does to everyone. Revelation to enforce obedience.

Of course you take issue with "some guy telling yet another woman what she should or should not think". You are supposed to. The scene is supposed to be disturbing and manipulative.

[thistlepong]

Would someone mind confirming whether or not it's possible to see a feminist subtext in TDtCB by itself? And maybe how? In like three sentences.

And is he alright? 'Cause interjecting in a fairly reasonable arena with all caps, when your point is allegedly rational discussion - ie "Problem-solving is all about REASONING, what is supposed to be the cornerstone of DEBATES" - makes me laugh and worry at the same time.

The economic argument however is interesting: and how values shift around production/consumption of goods. Even sovereignty of body is co-opted into pornography/prostitution. I don't think it accounts for the entirety of the women's rights movement, not nor do I think of it as a novel argument.

Am I missing some nuance of argument in what you quoted, sciborg? 'Cause it looks like he's pulling a fast one.

If you believe that all values are simply social artifacts (which I don't, because I think this is tantamount to nihilism), then what we call 'women's rights' is simply an expression of changing technological and economic conditions.* Given the way that technology increases productivity, the 'base economic units' of society become smaller and smaller. Just a few centuries back it was the village, then it became the extended family, then it became the nuclear family, and now it's becoming the individual. Every society in history rationalizes its economic organization in its belief-system, and our society is no different. So as the possibilities of female economic independence expanded, the more and more 'oppressive' the standing beliefs in the auxilary, familial role of females came to seem, and so the 'women's rights' movement was born. It's not that women are in FACT equal to men and always have been, it's just that their labour has recently become equally useful. There's no moral fact of the matter: just a social system spontaneously adapting its belief-system to better exploit its resources.*^{emphases mine}

As for works that cover similar territory better, try Pussy, King of the Pirates by Kathy Acker. Wow, look! Similar examination of religion, gender, historicity, freedom, compulsion, interpersonal relations, economic, and hell we'll even throw in prostitution without being condescending about it. Tidily in less than 300 pages. No waiting a few more years to see if she pulled it off.

[Sci-2]

Am I missing some nuance of argument in what you quoted, sciborg? 'Cause it looks like he's pulling a fast one.

You mean he actually thinks women's rights is born solely out of economics but says he doesn't?

I think the kernel of the idea is an interesting one, but I think the "solely" part is an overreach.

The other part, the hard-wiring part, he's specifically noted as relating to the Sranc. The question he posits is what if rapists' brains are different from others in a verifiable [way], what then? What about other criminal behaviors have high probability of occurring in certain brain configurations?

The way the humans treat the Sranc in WLW could conceivably be justified as Sranc have no souls. How we may treat the "likely" criminal in RL is something that does give me pause though it posits successes in neuroscience I'm not sure are worth betting on.

Like I said, the man is talented despite his internet train wrecks.

eta: added way

[Galactus]

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that a lot of people want to make a big issue out of the sexism/gender equality themes in Bakker's novel when really it is just a slice of what he is trying to get across philosophically and metaphysically. I understand that what he depicts is pretty frikkin gruesome and it isn't fun to think about. Especially for women in Earwa.

I think that's part of the problem, actually. He addresses it half-heartedly, because he's trying to fit in all sorts of other stuff too, Which means he's making half-arguments and trying to make characters serve multiple purposes that undermine each other.

And you know, he's an arrogant dick.

[thistlepong]

You mean he actually thinks women's rights is born solely out of economics but says he doesn't?

I think I'm just more confused now. He describes the economic argument at length after dismissing it. So does he have an economic argument? Or was he just responding poorly?

[Sci-2]

I think I'm just more confused now. He describes the economic argument at length after dismissing it. So does he have an economic argument? Or was he just responding poorly?

Well looking at this line:

If you believe that all values are simply social artifacts (which I don't, because I think this is tantamount to nihilism), then what we call 'women's rights' is simply an expression of changing technological and economic conditions.

IMO it means he's saying that values are not just social artifacts, however the specific value that women are equal to men in the workplace - in his opinion - is based at least partially (and maybe completely) on economic factors rather than society's collective realization that women deserve better treatment.

[Galactus]

I think Bakker's problem (and one that's common to a lot of non-historians) is that he looks at "The past" and sees it as one giant lump of uniformity.

It was not. Past people were as differentiated as moderns. They reacted to their circumstances very differently, even when oppressed. And their circumstances weren't even the same.

St. Bridget was not Eleanor of Aquitaine who was not Hildegard von Bingen who was not Kristina Gyllenstierna who was not Sapfo who was not Christine de Pisan who was not queen Zenobia was not Bertrande de Rois.

[Shryke]

I think I'm just more confused now. He describes the economic argument at length after dismissing it. So does he have an economic argument? Or was he just responding poorly?

No, he's making an assumption (one he doesn't necessarily agree with) and then making an argument based on that assumption.

"If you believe GRRM is a shaved gorilla (which I don't) then it's obvious he's a very talented one"

[thistlepong]

"If you believe GRRM is a shaved gorilla (which I don't) then it's obvious he's a very talented one"

GRRM is a gorilla?

[Grack21]

Man, you leave for a day to upgrade you pc and everything turns into a Bakker thread.

[Grack21]

This reminding me of this review of Jay Lake's Green, which seems like it's doing something similar to Bakker, (I've read this review, so i'll never actually be reading the book) but in a cruder way, thats maybe more illustrative of what i'm trying to criticize with Bakker: (Yes, I want to stop talking just about Bakker all the time.) The whole disconnect between what is shown and what is told, and Books With A Message, and demonizing what the author thinks is the male readers response to make them a better feminist:

relevant bit:

o.O Damnnit I just bought a book of his.

[Grack21]

Plus there is a random threesome with Kellhus, Esmenet and Serwe which always made me go completely WTF.

Ok yes, I'm posting three times in a row, so sue me.

When and what book did this happen in? I don't remember that at all. Then again I don't know wtf Bakker is talking about 99 percent of the time so maybe I missed it.

And you know, he's an arrogant dick.

Yes. Yes he is. I'm both glad and not glad I read he books before I started reading any interviews/blogs of his. I enjoy them a great deal, but man, the guy needs a PR agent or something.

[Kalbear]

Shrike, that is my point - that religion (or metaphysics) is simply a stand in for biology, a metaphor. That the notion in earwa that women are seen by the universe as inferior is exactly analogous to the notion that humans are slaves to biology.

Ent, I differ because I do not see it solely as a function of biology. To me it is fairly clear that we are learning machines, and much of our behavior is determined entirely as a facet of the biology combined with the learned behaavior. Other factors such as environment come into play too. I think Bakker is far more into biological explanations. As are you, come to think of it.

[Serious Callers Only]

what a clusterfuck

*lifts petticoats and retreats from thread*

[Shryke]

Shrike, that is my point - that religion (or metaphysics) is simply a stand in for biology, a metaphor. That the notion in earwa that women are seen by the universe as inferior is exactly analogous to the notion that humans are slaves to biology.

Analogous in some ways. Biology certainly doesn't carry a moral conviction. Just because metaphyics is fairly analogous to biology in this case doesn't mean he's making the "biology says women are inferior" argument.

[TheValyrianDragonlord]

Has anyone read this old blog post of Rothfuss? http://blog.patrickr...ie-adaptations/

I found that to be way creepier and problematic than anything Bakker's done. With Bakker, your guard is already up because the work is so intense, obsessive and explicit, the tone so bleak and subject so serious. Not many have disputed his intentions, just the execution.

I love Rothfuss's work. I think he's brilliant writer and I love reading the threads here along with Jo Walton's rereads. Such beautiful tight construction. So many narrative puzzles and gems. But I find his work to be quite troubling. I've always resented the power his work has held over me.

When I read the Name of the Wind and the Wise Man's Fear I feel like I'm 16 years old again. He managed to tap into that adolescent id in a way no other writer has.

The sexuality in his books and the portrayal of women are just so juvenile. I get that Kvothe is young and romantic and that's supposed to be the view but I still find it problematic. Even with the "cool" female characters like Devi and Vashet, I can't help but feel that it's a 16 year old's conception of strong badass female characters. And don't get me started on Denna.

That blog post of his encapsulates a lot of the problems I have with him. Kalbear says it a lot better than I could so you should read his post.

Rothfuss I notice doesn't seem to get the blowback that bakker does. Perhaps it's because he's seen as more trivial and lightweight and therefore harmless? Rothfuss kinda lulls me into this strange complacency. The sense of nostalgia he creates, the beautiful prose, it's all so soothing and therefore potentially way more sinister.

He also had the savvy not to respond and potentially escalate the situation unlike Bakker.

I was thinking a better analogy than Rothfuss's creepy one would be something along the line of having a great professor or teacher whose passion for nature and the environment made you into a committed environmentalist. Then years later you meet the prof again and find out that he/she is now a lobbyist for big oil interests and is in favor of fracking. And that prof still has the gall to call him/herself an environmentalist. The prof looks the same, talks the same and purports to hold the same views. But it's a total inversion of values.

[Sci-2]

Rothfuss doesn't get as much flak as Bakker because he doesn't stir the pot. His characters are silly but in the way of TV series and summer blockbusters. His post about the Hobbit was juvenile but to be expected from the depictions of women.

Rothfuss's women are jokes, but Bakker's work is far more brutal -> Sadly Bakker's subtext isn't polished enough to always be noticed.

But the most important thing is that Bakker conveys this aura of being arrogant and condescending. I would say the biggest problem is he is terrible at making people feel like he's listening.

[Shryke]

Rothfuss doesn't stir the pot in that, afaik and unlike Bakker, he doesn't actually start talking to many other people.

Bakker's main issue is trying to engage with fans and critics on the internet. It's always a stupid idea. Especially if you use your real name.