I read Joachim Boaz's review of TAU ZERO and I disagree with. I emphatically disagree with his dismissal of Charles Reymont and Ingrid Lindgren because I don't think Boaz truly understood them. Reymont was "authoritarian"? But that was only because some "iron" was necessary, for a time, and Charles did not try to permanently keep the power he had de facto gained, but surrendered it at the end of the book.
It is good to occasionally read negative comments about Anderson's works. They helped to clarify to more sympathetic readers what the critics are missing. Also, one impression I've gotten from less friendly reviews of Anderson's works is that the critics keep reading their preferred conceptions, social or political, into Anderson's stories, not keeping in mind what the CHARACTERS thought or believed.
And I have already written two replies to Mr. Boaz's review of TAU ZERO. I was esp. puzzled by his criticism of Anderson's alleged "sexism" (whatever that word means).
Sean, Well, we know what it means but whether it is a valid criticism of any particular work of fiction is open to debate. Are women treated as less intelligent than, or subordinate to, men? Are they regarded primarily as objects of sexual interest (or not) to men? I attended some meetings where the first thing that I noticed about a young woman was that her hair was dyed green. (I could not help noticing this first, obviously.) The second thing that I noticed was that she was making intelligent contributions and that I had better stop noticing what she looked like and start attending to what she was saying. If I had not heard her words but instead had spent the time thinking things like "Does she think that that makes her attractive?," then my response would have been sexist in the extreme. Paul.
And that is where I disagree with people who complain about Anderson's alleged "sexism." I never got the impression that he considered women to be less intelligent than males. And I've seen many of Anderson's male characters taking their intelligence seriously. Not exactly sure what is meant by "subordination," tho. I recall reading of how Muslims, in the time of the Crusader states in the Near East, in the 1100s, were astonished at how free Western women were, even then.
So, I don't think it was wrong of Anderson's male character to notice how attractive a woman might be--they also paid attention to her intelligence as well.
Sean, Two questions: What is "sexism"? Are Anderson's works "sexist"? I was addressing only the first. Subordination: there are still more men than women in top jobs and professions although this is changing; there is still a tendency for women to earn less for whatever reason; when I worked in a school years ago, my father expressed surprise that the Head Teacher was a woman - he still expected a man to be in that position. Those were the social attitudes and expectations of a previous generation. Paul.
I feel a bit at sea when someone claims not even to understand the meanings of words like "sexism" or "subordination." These words are commonly in use and definitions are to be found. Why not start with dictionary definitions? Then, going further into the purely terminological question, writers on these issues state what they mean by the terms that they use. I THINK that, when you say, "I don't understand 'sexism,'" you really mean something else like 'I don't think that there is any sexually based prejudice/inequality/oppression etc in contemporary society.'" At least, the discussion goes back and forth between "What is 'sexism'?" and "Is there any 'sexism'?" and this is unhelpful.
When discussing politics, I will not ask you to define what you mean by "legitimacy." You have already defined what you mean by it and it is a perfectly valid concept. Despite preferring republicanism to monarchy, I would not dream of forcibly overthrowing a monarchy that was clearly supported by the majority of its subjects. There would probably be other issues (economic, educational, social?) to campaign around in such a society but any such campaign would need the "legitimacy" of sufficient popular support and a sufficiently vocal minority can campaign to change the views of the majority over time, eventually maybe leading to a questioning of social hierarchies and institutionalized inequalities. Thus, society advances (maybe). Progress gets derailed if and when someone sets up a dictatorship in the name of "equality." Hopefully, we learn from history.
I went to Joachim Boaz's site, indicated my appreciation of his comments, and suggested he comment here- I believe his perspective/contribution would be useful.
Re: P A's alleged sexism: I believe P A' s attitudes toward women are reflective of a male, libertarian/conservative author born in 1926 whose readership has probably been largely (young/middle aged) men during the last half of the 20th Century.
Re: Joachim Boaz. Right on! Re: PA's milieu. This always has to be taken into account instead of just discussing, let alone condemning, an author in a vacuum.
A popular British author, writing patriotic thrillers DURING WWII, wrote that Germans are inferior because of the shapes of their heads! That novel should never be republished without a footnote and a publisher's disclaimer of racism.
First, I have a PhD in history. I am aware of historical context and the need to place Anderson in his time and place (thankfully, my site covers almost entirely 50s-70s SF so, I have read and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of novels by a large range of authors to compare him to). Just because he wrote in this period does not mean we can't call his views out!
Second, I have read a LOT of Anderson's short stories and novels (12 + reviews on my site) -- Tau Zero struck me as distinct in its depiction of women. And a sad reality might be the fact that he included more female characters than some of his other works.
Third, I actually made a list when I read it of how he refers to women throughout the novel (a part of my review indicates some notable patterns with page numbers -- which Sean did not actually refer to in his response).
If you do a reread of a novel, pay attention! Sometimes when we read, we don't notice depictions. Often this is why read reviews -- other reviews have different perspectives and interests and pick up on different patterns.
Sean, Medieval European women were freer than Muslim women? But that says nothing about male-female relationships now. You give the impression of deploying every conceivable argument, whether relevant or not! When you argue that women are not disadvantaged, you show that you do understand what "sexism" means. Paul.
I finally feel ready to respond to the bit about Poul Anderson's alleged "sexism." I continue to believe that word to be carelessly or loosely used. I have read of a case where a physician and psychiatrist, trying to assist a young woman at risk of abuse, warning that the greater physical strength of most men compared to most women, puts her in physical danger, with the wrong kind of men. The only response the dr. got was that it was "sexist" to say so. That is why I find "sexist" so unsatisfactory a word.
I also believe women are different from men, in both body and (sometimes) in general inclinations. And that this comes with consequences. You say the top ranks of most jobs and professions are still held mostly by men, and not many women are found there. I would ask WHY that is the case. And my view is that one major reason for that is because if women are going to have children, that necessarily means taking YEARS away from those jobs and professions, in order to bear and care for those children. Which inevitably means there will be fewer women in those top spots.
And I don't think that is bad! What can BE more important than for a good mother to take proper care for her children? And a good FATHER provides for his family. Some might argue that a woman can do both, have families and rise to the top. Granted, if she can, good for her! But I don't think most women with children are going to be like that, or even want to be.
I hope this addresses your major points. And Poul Anderson's views on the importance of legitimacy if any kind of not too bad gov't is to endure is something I am glad we agree on.
Sean, Remember, I responded to the question, "What is sexism?" I did not allege that Anderson was sexist. The misuse of a word does not alter the right meaning of the word. A misbehaving black pupil alleged that I was racist because I challenged his misbehavior. Obviously, this was nonsense but does not entail that "racist" is meaningless. The imbalance of men as against women in top jobs results from the reason you state and also from an entrenched hostility of many men against women filling such jobs. This is having to be challenged. Paul.
Of course I agree words like "racism" can be misused and abused. No argument there. I also agree there is hostility by some, not all men, to women rising to the top jobs in many professions--and that is also bad.
One point I forgot to make is that I believe many, not all, women are simply not as aggressively competitive as many men. That too will affect how many women will rise to the top spots.
" women are simply not as aggressively competitive as many men. That too will affect how many women will rise to the top spots."
Let us say for the sake of argument that this is true: 1) Why is that so? Could it be because there are many explicit/implicit discouragements for women to be this way? 2) Why does the selection of "top spots" inherently require what has typically been associated as a traditionally "masculine" trait, anyway?
Keith, I think that men got the upper hand in prehistory when they accumulated property in herds and slaves. Wanting identifiable male heirs, they imposed patriarchal monogamy on women with the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births. Women became part of the property. Before that, they had been free and equal or even superior. Descent was matrilineal so the imposition of male inheritance was a defeat for women. Paul.
I really am skeptical it was that simplistic. I put it down to men wanting to be SURE the children they were helping to care for and raise WERE their own progeny. Why should men sweat and slave to support children not their own?
Sean, A property-owning man wanted one identifiable male heir, preferably legitimate (with his wife), otherwise illegitimate (with a concubine), e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael. Slave women had sons who were part of the household, would work within it and might inherit if there was no legitimate heir. Paul.
Certainly, I agree that was the law and custom in many parts of the world. And provisions were also made for daughters inheriting if a man had no sons. And I think it bears out my point about men wishing to KNOW who were their children.
27 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I read Joachim Boaz's review of TAU ZERO and I disagree with. I emphatically disagree with his dismissal of Charles Reymont and Ingrid Lindgren because I don't think Boaz truly understood them. Reymont was "authoritarian"? But that was only because some "iron" was necessary, for a time, and Charles did not try to permanently keep the power he had de facto gained, but surrendered it at the end of the book.
It is good to occasionally read negative comments about Anderson's works. They helped to clarify to more sympathetic readers what the critics are missing. Also, one impression I've gotten from less friendly reviews of Anderson's works is that the critics keep reading their preferred conceptions, social or political, into Anderson's stories, not keeping in mind what the CHARACTERS thought or believed.
Sean
Good point about the guy relinquishing power.
Kaor, Paul!
And one Joachim Boaz should have noticed! That alone should have modified his hostile view of Reymont.
Sean
Hello those who critiqued my review, you are welcome to engage in the discussion I had on my page! I enjoy reading contrasting viewpoints.
Sincerely,
Joachim Boaz
Joachim,
Thank you. I too agree that discussion of your page should be on your page.
Paul.
Dear Mr. Boaz,
Thank you. Your blog is the appropriate venue for discussing your reviews of any of Poul Anderson's works.
Sean M. Brooks
On the Logic of Time Travel blog, I have just linked to Joachim's review of Poul Anderson's THERE WILL BE TIME.
Kaor, Paul!
And I have already written two replies to Mr. Boaz's review of TAU ZERO. I was esp. puzzled by his criticism of Anderson's alleged "sexism" (whatever that word means).
Sean
Sean,
Well, we know what it means but whether it is a valid criticism of any particular work of fiction is open to debate. Are women treated as less intelligent than, or subordinate to, men? Are they regarded primarily as objects of sexual interest (or not) to men? I attended some meetings where the first thing that I noticed about a young woman was that her hair was dyed green. (I could not help noticing this first, obviously.) The second thing that I noticed was that she was making intelligent contributions and that I had better stop noticing what she looked like and start attending to what she was saying. If I had not heard her words but instead had spent the time thinking things like "Does she think that that makes her attractive?," then my response would have been sexist in the extreme.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is where I disagree with people who complain about Anderson's alleged "sexism." I never got the impression that he considered women to be less intelligent than males. And I've seen many of Anderson's male characters taking their intelligence seriously. Not exactly sure what is meant by "subordination," tho. I recall reading of how Muslims, in the time of the Crusader states in the Near East, in the 1100s, were astonished at how free Western women were, even then.
So, I don't think it was wrong of Anderson's male character to notice how attractive a woman might be--they also paid attention to her intelligence as well.
Sean
Sean,
Two questions: What is "sexism"? Are Anderson's works "sexist"? I was addressing only the first.
Subordination: there are still more men than women in top jobs and professions although this is changing; there is still a tendency for women to earn less for whatever reason; when I worked in a school years ago, my father expressed surprise that the Head Teacher was a woman - he still expected a man to be in that position. Those were the social attitudes and expectations of a previous generation.
Paul.
Sean,
I feel a bit at sea when someone claims not even to understand the meanings of words like "sexism" or "subordination." These words are commonly in use and definitions are to be found. Why not start with dictionary definitions? Then, going further into the purely terminological question, writers on these issues state what they mean by the terms that they use. I THINK that, when you say, "I don't understand 'sexism,'" you really mean something else like 'I don't think that there is any sexually based prejudice/inequality/oppression etc in contemporary society.'" At least, the discussion goes back and forth between "What is 'sexism'?" and "Is there any 'sexism'?" and this is unhelpful.
When discussing politics, I will not ask you to define what you mean by "legitimacy." You have already defined what you mean by it and it is a perfectly valid concept. Despite preferring republicanism to monarchy, I would not dream of forcibly overthrowing a monarchy that was clearly supported by the majority of its subjects. There would probably be other issues (economic, educational, social?) to campaign around in such a society but any such campaign would need the "legitimacy" of sufficient popular support and a sufficiently vocal minority can campaign to change the views of the majority over time, eventually maybe leading to a questioning of social hierarchies and institutionalized inequalities. Thus, society advances (maybe). Progress gets derailed if and when someone sets up a dictatorship in the name of "equality." Hopefully, we learn from history.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to go to work, so I have no time to adequately respond.
Sean
I went to Joachim Boaz's site, indicated my appreciation of his comments, and suggested he comment here- I believe his perspective/contribution would be useful.
-kh
Re: P A's alleged sexism:
I believe P A' s attitudes toward women are reflective of a male, libertarian/conservative author born in 1926 whose readership has probably been largely (young/middle aged) men during the last half of the 20th Century.
-kh
Keith,
Re: Joachim Boaz. Right on!
Re: PA's milieu. This always has to be taken into account instead of just discussing, let alone condemning, an author in a vacuum.
A popular British author, writing patriotic thrillers DURING WWII, wrote that Germans are inferior because of the shapes of their heads! That novel should never be republished without a footnote and a publisher's disclaimer of racism.
Paul.
I want to emphasize some key points.
First, I have a PhD in history. I am aware of historical context and the need to place Anderson in his time and place (thankfully, my site covers almost entirely 50s-70s SF so, I have read and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of novels by a large range of authors to compare him to). Just because he wrote in this period does not mean we can't call his views out!
Second, I have read a LOT of Anderson's short stories and novels (12 + reviews on my site) -- Tau Zero struck me as distinct in its depiction of women. And a sad reality might be the fact that he included more female characters than some of his other works.
Third, I actually made a list when I read it of how he refers to women throughout the novel (a part of my review indicates some notable patterns with page numbers -- which Sean did not actually refer to in his response).
If you do a reread of a novel, pay attention! Sometimes when we read, we don't notice depictions. Often this is why read reviews -- other reviews have different perspectives and interests and pick up on different patterns.
Sean,
Medieval European women were freer than Muslim women? But that says nothing about male-female relationships now. You give the impression of deploying every conceivable argument, whether relevant or not! When you argue that women are not disadvantaged, you show that you do understand what "sexism" means.
Paul.
Joachim,
Understand a writer's context but also assess and possibly disagree with his views: right.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I finally feel ready to respond to the bit about Poul Anderson's alleged "sexism." I continue to believe that word to be carelessly or loosely used. I have read of a case where a physician and psychiatrist, trying to assist a young woman at risk of abuse, warning that the greater physical strength of most men compared to most women, puts her in physical danger, with the wrong kind of men. The only response the dr. got was that it was "sexist" to say so. That is why I find "sexist" so unsatisfactory a word.
I also believe women are different from men, in both body and (sometimes) in general inclinations. And that this comes with consequences. You say the top ranks of most jobs and professions are still held mostly by men, and not many women are found there. I would ask WHY that is the case. And my view is that one major reason for that is because if women are going to have children, that necessarily means taking YEARS away from those jobs and professions, in order to bear and care for those children. Which inevitably means there will be fewer women in those top spots.
And I don't think that is bad! What can BE more important than for a good mother to take proper care for her children? And a good FATHER provides for his family. Some might argue that a woman can do both, have families and rise to the top. Granted, if she can, good for her! But I don't think most women with children are going to be like that, or even want to be.
I hope this addresses your major points. And Poul Anderson's views on the importance of legitimacy if any kind of not too bad gov't is to endure is something I am glad we agree on.
Sean
Sean,
Remember, I responded to the question, "What is sexism?" I did not allege that Anderson was sexist.
The misuse of a word does not alter the right meaning of the word. A misbehaving black pupil alleged that I was racist because I challenged his misbehavior. Obviously, this was nonsense but does not entail that "racist" is meaningless.
The imbalance of men as against women in top jobs results from the reason you state and also from an entrenched hostility of many men against women filling such jobs. This is having to be challenged.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree words like "racism" can be misused and abused. No argument there. I also agree there is hostility by some, not all men, to women rising to the top jobs in many professions--and that is also bad.
One point I forgot to make is that I believe many, not all, women are simply not as aggressively competitive as many men. That too will affect how many women will rise to the top spots.
Sean
" women are simply not as aggressively competitive as many men. That too will affect how many women will rise to the top spots."
Let us say for the sake of argument that this is true:
1) Why is that so? Could it be because there are many explicit/implicit discouragements for women to be this way?
2) Why does the selection of "top spots" inherently require what has typically been associated as a traditionally "masculine" trait, anyway?
-kh
Keith,
I think that men got the upper hand in prehistory when they accumulated property in herds and slaves. Wanting identifiable male heirs, they imposed patriarchal monogamy on women with the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births. Women became part of the property. Before that, they had been free and equal or even superior. Descent was matrilineal so the imposition of male inheritance was a defeat for women.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I really am skeptical it was that simplistic. I put it down to men wanting to be SURE the children they were helping to care for and raise WERE their own progeny. Why should men sweat and slave to support children not their own?
Sean
Sean,
A property-owning man wanted one identifiable male heir, preferably legitimate (with his wife), otherwise illegitimate (with a concubine), e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael.
Slave women had sons who were part of the household, would work within it and might inherit if there was no legitimate heir.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Certainly, I agree that was the law and custom in many parts of the world. And provisions were also made for daughters inheriting if a man had no sons. And I think it bears out my point about men wishing to KNOW who were their children.
Sean
Post a Comment