hope I don't break my arm falling out of the treehouse

[intertribal]

Fantasy fans frustrate me sometimes.

Alison Flood (who I often disagree with) writes at The Guardian about her experience reading Conan stories and how turned off she is by the way different races are described, and the way women are described, and the way intersectionality brings the two together into a horrible union: The more lily-white a woman's skin, the more prized she is, says Flood.  So she wonders: "Is it ridiculous to criticise Robert E Howard's enjoyably pulpy Conan stories for their 1930s attitudes to women and race?"

The resounding response to this question: of course it is!  (And of course Flood responds to all this hysterical defensiveness of Conan with "but I really did enjoy a lot of it, I swear!  I promise!"  Ugh.)

- so what...take it in context. Do you critique sub-Saharan African or Oriental literature for its focus on particular races?
personally, as soon as you say Oriental you are docked like 1,000 points in my book.
- attempting to over-analyse them is the wrong way to approach them.
- its like dissing Harlequin romance novels for heaving breasts, wimpy heroines saved by manly men, and schmaltz writing.* Conan was always the romance novels for teenage boys.
- Oh, on the matter of political correctness or whatever you want to call it, I don't think it's all that bad. It's reconstructed, perhaps, and there's some stuff sitting between noble savage paternalism and popular xenophobia, but they are by no means Nazi screeds or something. I'm a pretty wishy-washy PC sort of a guy, but I don't see that as a big failing in the Conan stories, particularly if you consider the times and - more so - the men's adventure writing genre.
- No, you couldn't get away with writing like that today but so what? They're still good tales. The racism jarred? Just as well you didn't read the Del Ray editions which are the definitive texts, unlike your edition which was based on texts edited in the 1970's to make them more politically correct.

Man, it is SO AWESOME when "politically correct" is used like this.  Geez, thinking that women who are not porcelain white can be attractive is so PC, geez.  Gosh, if we were just BEING HONEST... /sarcasm

I get "taking things in context."  I really do.  I let a lot of classic lit take a pass because of this, and because there are redeeming values in the book.  Obviously I am a fan of the Mythos (though one of the lovely things about that is that it is constantly reinvented today without Lovecraft's B.S.), but that doesn't mean I just say "so what" to Lovecraft's racism (and hey, what interesting implications for horror as it pertains to changing social values, eh?).  Heart of Darkness is one of my all-time favorite books, although I also think that Achebe's criticisms of the way it depicts Africans are totally valid.  I have never read Conan and I don't want to (because epic barbarianism is not my genre), but I suspect if I did I would probably think it was funny in a pathetic way, remember that it is a product of its time, put it back on the shelf, and point and laugh at people who read it.  This isn't even about Conan.  You can replace Conan with any number of things that now come with the warning, "product of its time."

It's the responses that really get to me, the "who cares if it has that because I had fun reading it when I was an adolescent boy" thing.  Does that mean they'd give it to their sons?  Probably, yeah.  After all, so what?  Why not?  So Conan lives on, Conan with his lily-white women, Conan who ironically cannot be criticized because he is not to be taken seriously.  Whereas classic lit, which is actually, you know, meaningful and interesting and not the equivalent of a Michael Bay movie with half the intelligence, is constantly called out for its outdated bullshit.  Which is good, interesting, and ultimately necessary, because we are people living TODAY, analyzing it TODAY.  Like my Colonial Encounters class, talking about the way Tin Tin and Babar have been changed over the years, to get rid of the horrific racist cartoons in one and the weird-ass imperialist mindset in the other.  Nobody said let's go out and burn all copies of Rin Tin Tin.  It's saying, "hey, let's talk about this, look at how norms change over time, look at how embedded colonial narratives were, even in ads for detergent and coffee, did any of you pick up on this as kids?"  I wrote a paper on how Peter Pan is an iteration of the Noble Savage myth.  I love Peter Pan, but hey, it was an interesting idea.  Like this awesome thing I found on Victorian Chromatic Anxiety in Jane Eyre (i.e. "Jane's all white"). 

And some of the comments on that site did engage with what Flood brought up, suggest other works to try, explain things in a more in-depth way, etc, while still liking Conan stories.  There are, of course, Tolkien fights.  Which is fine.  Engagement and discussion, that's what you want!

But when the response to the idea of a discussion of these issues is a defensive "so what"... damn, it makes me want to break stuff.  This is the same thing that people say to defend Enid Blyton, another product of her time - "it doesn't matter, it's just for fun" or "it doesn't matter, it's just for kids". 

What the he-ell does that imply, exactly? 

I'm not saying no one is allowed to read Conan or what the hell have you.  You can even read Enid fucking Blyton for all I care - I don't even want to ban Mein Kampf, so far be it for me to try to disallow literature with psycho ideas and norms.  I'm saying this sort of response to criticisms that a book has racist/sexist imagery is really frustrating.  Nasty little tidbits tucked in books - especially books for adolescents, especially books for entertainment - do not mean nothing. 
 
ETA: As Lindsey says below, media does not in and of itself cause people to be prejudiced - not in the olden days, not now.  If it wasn't a problem in society, it wouldn't be a problem in a book.  Obviously it is a problem in society, however.

* Just to note, I don't let romance novels off this hook either.

Comments

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

That is a hard thing to imagine. I keep imagining Bigfoot (I think it's the "very hairy... all in black"). And yeah, I think I knew that about you, and may have known that about Alex (you have written about him before), which may be coloring some of my responses too.

I agree, it's a good thing to be jarred. I'm glad you wrote that, actually.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Your responses are colored by the fact that we don't like femininity that's bad for the equality of women (and annoying as all fuck, but also bad for the equality of women)?

Really? huh.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, mainly the "annoying as all fuck" aspect, plus I know you've said things akin to "I don't like women" (qualified by things). It just seems to me that you get frustrated by "typical" women (I'm trying to word this carefully but I'm probably being bad at it). And I get why you say these things. It just doesn't surprise me that a gendered insult would not really bother you (any more than any other insult).

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, I think femininity is in many essential ways defined by the inequality of women, so it can't help but perpetuate it. I also think feminine and masculine are socially constructed categories that no one fits, that there is no such thing as "women" really, and that everything about being a woman, short of periods and breasts and babies, is learned.

Why are you trying to word it carefully? Because you want to say I just hate women? I don't. I hate weakness and slavishness and resentment and the double-bind that is the situation of women in relation to marriage, and I hate all that comes with it--the objectification, the competition, the fashion (which at its worst is an obscene mix of the two previous), the depression and manic-ness, the shyness, the shame, the petty small-mindedness, the focus on personal and practical concerns, the situation of a homemaker in a capitalist society, the commodification of sexuality, the quietness, the isolation, the dependence, the politeness, the fear of making the bold moves men are forced to do and the chastising of women who do so anyway...and so on.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

No no no, because of the "typical" woman thing. I mean, you can easily say "there is no typical woman" and then get all tied up in crap (I just saw an internet debate about that).

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, of course there is no typical woman. Types and real things are different kinds of things. Types, ideals, categories cannot exist in the world. But they are what people are defined and judged by and to some extent embody, because we are symbol-using creatures, and so on.

Anyway, I still don't see why this is coloring your responses.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Because I felt a gendered insult isn't something you'd object to, because femininity is annoying as all fuck anyway. I don't know if I can provide an example of this coloring my responses, it was just something in the back of my mind.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I sense that you don't like this and think I don't like women, and that is what's really at the back of your mind.

Anyway, I don't think that's my reason. At least, my reason is certainly not that I think women ought to be insulted because they are women and women suck. Which amounts to you thinking I just hate women, which is just what I said before...am I missing something?

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I dunno, hate's a strong word. I would say "don't like" is better. I guess I don't put it in as simple phrases as that because I know you don't just automatically dislike 50% of the population. I know that it's not "women" in and of themselves that you dislike. Maybe "not sympathetic to" is a better connector.

Also, when you said "Why are you trying to word it carefully? Because you want to say I just hate women?" And then I said, "No no no, because of the "typical" woman thing," I was clarifying what I was trying to word carefully. I wasn't saying "No no no, I absolutely would never think that you hate women." And I still wouldn't say that because like I said, hate's a strong word and I know it's more complicated than that, but it's not like I was vehemently objecting to that interpretation.

So you can probably just conclude you're not missing anything.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Wtf? Look, I don't like most people (men, women, hermaphrodites, transies...). I s'pose it's true that I don't relate to a lot of women, partly because they tend to be more polite, but I can feel them judging me behind their words and not telling me what they really think of me, and I can't handle that (but this is true of my reactions to any people who put up this sort of front, which also includes a lot of upper class sorts of people, and otherwise is of course an individual thing). Just like I can't handle arguments that end with the silent treatment instead of just having it out and moving on. I don't like the parts of myself that are still very much 'womanly' because those are the parts that are dependent. On the other hand, I don't have hang-ups about masculinity like certain men do, and I can understand women's perspective better than if I were a boy, probably. But most of the guys I end up in longish relationships end up being 'the boy' just like most girls end up being 'the girl' (you know, the object, the status symbol, the dependent one). And realizing that has perhaps made me try to treat such men better, because they can't handle being treated as if they were strong, independent, decision-making types. Anyway, I'm getting on a tangent.

Point is, I think it's stupid to just "not like" any group of people. Ideas, attitudes, behaviors, etc. I can not like just fine. And sometimes I say otherwise as a tongue-in-cheek sort of shorthand, but it's not how I actually feel about individual people. The other point is that I don't think "women" ARE a real group of people, except in the sense that socially created things are real and ideas are real, because they have real effects in the world. So if I don't like women, I'm either disliking an idea, or I'm disliking something that doesn't exist (if you mean that women are a category that really exists as people, because such a thing is impossible), but I'm not disliking any actual people in particular.

Sigh.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

But the tangent is relevant: I can't shake the feeling that treating people gently and politely because they're not 'strong and independent' is horribly condescending. And maybe there's nothing wrong with being arrogant in that respect and treating weaker people as people who constantly need your help and consideration, okay. But it seems better to me to treat people as equals and expect equal independence and self-reliance from them. It seems less asshole-ish to me to expect that from everybody. I guess I'm a little more lenient about pride, partly b/c I think everybody has their insecurities and different ways of covering them up or coping, partly because I think that battles for alpha male status fought through sheer symbolic power are pretty worthless and obscure important things like the facts, although pride (not vanity) is in general a good thing I think people should have.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I'm not sure anything in this convo would be what I define as "treating people gently and politely," however - I don't see it as akin to holding doors open and that sort of thing.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I am simply saying that I would consider somebody who didn't respect and rely on themselves (and in general treated themselves as inferior and not fully human) to be, well, not very respectable. I could pity them, or coddle them, but could I respect them? Should I even try to? And perhaps it is that that you see and dislike.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Um... well, we may have different definitions of "somebody who didn't respect and rely on themselves." I don't think that's what I see and dislike, however. In fact, I never said there was anything about your perception that I dislike.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well self-reliance involves not relying on tradition, social conformity, or a husband. Self-respect...I could go on, but no time. I know you didn't say it, but it's the vibe I'm getting. I'm not sure why else you would assume I think insulting women is okay? I dunno, I guess the reduction of my argument to some pre-established prejudice against women seems like something you would obviously dislike, and for good reason, if that was the case.

Did I mention that I'm paranoid about people judging me? Oh, right...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

"why else you would assume I think insulting women is okay" = because I feel that you're harder on women than you are on men. I feel like you sort of have a boostraps approach to sexism and sex-based discrimination. And yeah, maybe I do think that you would think "well, if a woman is not self-reliant, etc., then insulting her is okay (she doesn't deserve respect)," which then coupled with me thinking that you would also think "most women are not self-reliant" leads to the conclusion that I would assume you think insulting women is okay. Granted what I'm missing in that sentence is a most - "insulting (most) women is okay."

But I was trying not to reduce your argument to some pre-established prejudice against women, because we've talked about this before and I know it's more complicated than that. Hence why I'm not just going to say I dislike it. I may not totally agree with everything you think in this regard, of course.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I try very hard not to be harder on women, to give them the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps even a step up. But I cannot and will not sacrifice my standards of, say, what a good linguistics professor should be in order to serve the cause of more women getting hired. Of course, most ling profs are women or gay men anyway, which is a whole nother issue. I don't have a "bootstraps approach." I think that large-scale social change needs to happen, but what's going to happen in my life, or my friends' lives is going to depend a lot on what actions they take and not on any large-scale changes.

As for your deduction about insulting women, I think it's total bullshit. I think if anyone is not self-reliant, then it is okay to criticize them, depending on the context (and generally, you would want something productive to come of it, but then, sometimes being harsh with people is productive, and it's hard to predict these things, and people will never have ideal interactions). I don't think most people are self-reliant, and I certainly don't go around constantly telling them that. That would be stupid and pointless.

So, the first premise is no good--I don't think that if someone is not self-reliant, then insulting them is okay. I also don't think that not respecting someone means that you think insulting them is okay. And I think criticism is generally more productive than insults, and generally you should aim to have productive interactions. And this is probably where I tend more toward the feminine in my arguing style, because I really don't like treating arguments as competitions of egos, which is not in service of getting at the truth.

As for the second premise, it seems trivially true to me. You might as well say "most Christians are not self-reliant" or "most poor people are not self-reliant" or just about anybody. Anyway, the first part is more than enough to make the conclusion invalid.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know. That's why I said, earlier, "plus I know you've said things akin to "I don't like women" (qualified by things)," and "I know you don't just automatically dislike 50% of the population. I know that it's not "women" in and of themselves that you dislike."

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I don't feel like you do know. I just expect everybody to be equally human beings. I don't have a 'thing' against women or the idea of women or anything.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

If you say that you don't have a thing against women or the idea of women or anything, ok. I'm not going to tell you what you do or don't think.

All I can say is that "expecting everybody to be equally human beings" is not how you always come across (I mean in other conversations). I often feel, rightly or wrongly, that you expect everybody to be "a man," and that you are much more likely to dislike a woman (any woman) than a man (any man), because women are socialized to be weak and men are socialized to be strong. I remember particularly a conversation about Nietzsche that made me think this. And maybe that's because you can't relate to a lot of women, or because femininity is a position of inferiority, or both.

And in recent years I have started to understand your criticisms of femininity - I know there are things you may have said in college that I disagreed with then that I agree with now. So it's not that I "see and dislike" your opinion. It's just that I think I remain slightly more sensitive to words like "cunt" than you, and maybe even that we look at gendered insults differently (which I think this conversation has shown). And I feel like I know you're looking at it differently, so I try to compensate for what I feel is my perspective, so that you get where I'm coming from, because I know we're not coming from the same place, exactly.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

It's the reduction of it to a "thing," a prejudice, a blind feeling about women or the idea of women (which I also think is different from femininity, so I should use those terms carefully) that I think is false.

If I expect everybody to be "a man," it is only in the sense that I expect people to be what men (rich white men, even) have always been taken to be: individual human beings, who are the "eye that looks" (in de Beauvoir's words), instead of being confined to the status of objects. Anything else about men I think can be taken or left on an individual basis, and is probably pretty culturally bound as well. But so much of the male/female distinction simply comes down to subject/object, unmarked/marked, and to be a true, independent, self-respecting, self-reliant human being, you have to be the former. You have to be the former even though no one is objective and everyone is coming from their own particular experience and so on.

A few radical feminists have made the point that, for instance, women shouldn't be expected to be logical because logic is a "man's" thing and telling women (and everybody else) that this is the standard they have to be judged by is just being sexist. I think these arguments are a piece of shit. They are only a 'man's' thing because it was men who were given the privilege to look out on the world and make decisions about it and settle disputes with some appeal to reality and rationality. Just because women weren't doesn't mean it's some inherently masculine thing, and buying into that sort of logic is just buying into patriarchy and their own subordination as women--because it's subordination that told women their thoughts didn't matter; it's subordination that told women their only virtues and duties were to husband and family, and thus that their only logic was a personal and practical logic; and most of all it's subordination that made them objects in a man's world, not thinking subjects of their own.

This is basically my standard of judging, and my expectations are high. More men tend to meet them than women, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Same goes for Nietzsche.

I'm not sure what you mean by compensating for what you feel is your perspective.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I thought you were shutting off your email client?

Well, yeah, obviously that argument is shit. I think the difference between us may be that given an example of a woman being reliant, dependent, et al., you would blame her and I would blame society. Which is not to say that I don't think women should take responsibility for themselves, because I do.

It just means I feel like I have to explain my perspective more because we don't have it in common.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I decided to respond to that batch of emails and then turn it off. I can't leave it half-done. Anyway I'm back momentarily even though it's a horrible idea and I already didn't sleep much last night and won't tonight and already spend a few hours tonight writing to you or however long it was.

I think it's strange how many of the things you say about my point of view I find much more offensive than calling me a cunt/bitch/pussy/whatever ever would be. Of course it's partly society's fault and partly her own doing. How could it be anything else? How could it be otherwise that women tend to do things like become mathematicians, or philosophers, or not do things like become homemakers or stay-at-home parents, or marry at an early age with no established career much less often than men do simply because women are not socialized to and/or do not have the opportunity to do these things? (sorry awkward sentence wording)

I am not sure what you think we don't have in common or what is dividing our perspectives or what.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Um, well, I'm sorry? You should tell me if what I'm saying about your point of view is offensive (as I don't find it to be so). I'm not saying you don't see society's hand. I guess I feel like in the past you have been much faster to look to personal responsibility than I (and I have in fact slid more toward personal responsibility because of your arguments in favor of it/against self-victimization). I don't really see that as anything bad, but maybe I'm wording things badly. In any case, I'm sorry if what I've been saying about your point of view has been that egregiously wrong/offensive. I'm not just saying it to say it, so either I'm saying it wrong (I'm probably saying it more simply/bluntly, in any case) or I've mistaken your opinions on many previous occasions. I suspect that I'm wording things badly.

Yeah, I don't know either, at this point. Probably that I think gendered insults matter more (because they are gendered).

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

forgot to go back and edit the top part, but i'm going to bed now.