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

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think calling someone a pussy has anything to do with vaginas, but...that's me. And sometimes I really do want the punch of vulgarity, and I think that's something kind of new to me, because I never felt the need to say such things before. But I'm sick of being quiet and polite all the time. I think it's suffocating me. None of my thoughts are appropriate, and I just learned that "If you don't have something nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all," like a good little girl but FUCK that. I'm sick of being punished for being the girl people want me to be, I'm sick of double standards, and I'm sick of keeping everything in.

Uh...moving on. I think the real difference is to me it's NOT obvious what someone thinks just because of what word they use. Words are not some monolithic blocks that just mean one thing and say one thing about the speaker and be used one way. Usage can't exist without context, and context, among other things, is essential to figuring out what somebody means. With some people, in some contexts, I would totally agree with your interpretation. With people like Alex, I don't, and I think I'm right in that because that's not really what he thinks. His gayness means he doesn't feel a need to pander to women, sure, but most of his friends are also women, and he has just about nothing in common with a mysogynistic womanizer (who nonetheless knows just what to say to women...). Myself, I don't use such words terribly often, but when I do it's usually with people who (I hope) already understand my pov or where I'm coming from, and I always use it as just a vulgar means of expressing that I think some action is weak or whatever, and I always use it equally for men and women (such that if a man or a woman did the action, it would merit the same response from me). I just fail to appreciate the gendered aspect, I think, because I don't see how "being a cunt" really has anything to do with being a woman. That said, I think the context is important. There are contexts in which it's clearly being used because the action is 'feminine', and I think those are the most sexist and to be avoided.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

*can be used one way

The funny thing is I'd written that at first, and then I hallucinated that there was a 'can' after 'that'...

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

*action or person

Anyway, words all seem a lot more trivial than actual problems women face.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, definitely.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I don't see how "being a cunt" really has anything to do with being a woman. I don't think calling someone a pussy has anything to do with vaginas

I think that is the big difference between us, because I think if it didn't have anything to do with that, you (general you) would choose a different word. Of course, what different word, I don't know. But something that is not a direct reference to female genitalia, perhaps?

I agree, though, that what someone thinks is not made obvious by the word they use - but I think words send an impression. And maybe I should remind myself of that more often - that I don't know that someone is being sexist or whatnot by using cunt, but I will still, forever, prefer a gender-neutral insult. Hence I'm a big fan of "fuck" in all its permutations, and "shit." I am totally sympathetic to you on the subject of vulgarity, OTOH, as I began to feel that way in college/late high school.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I mean that there is nothing about being a woman that has anything to do with what it means to act like a cunt. There is the association that the word has with femininity and thus with all the (bad) things femininity can signify to people, but that is a historical association. The word doesn't mean 'woman', or even 'feminine', though in other contexts yeah, female genitalia--but words are perfectly capable of having radically different meanings depending on context. I'd only use it because it seems stronger and more shocking than "asshole" or something like that.

Interestingly, wikipedia has this to say:

""Cunt" can also be used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to a person of either sex, but this usage is relatively recent, dating back only as far as the late nineteenth century.[3] Reflecting different national usages, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "cunt" as "an unpleasant or stupid person", whereas Merriam-Webster defines the term as "a disparaging term for a woman" and "a woman regarded as a sexual object"; the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man". When used as a slang term with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc) in countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person to which it refers."

Just pretend I'm British.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

LOL, and I guess I'm American.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Do you think that's what it means? That it is a term that means 'woman' with a strongly negative connotation? Because that's very different...

That said, I am not entirely sure where my usage comes from, although this isn't exactly my Curse Word of Choice. I can think of like, two times in the last three years in which I have used it, and one of those was hypothetical.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I do, actually.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

hm, cause i see it as definitely having historical roots in that, but just meaning, as it says, a very unpleasant person. i s'pose women are expected to be pleasant more than men, but that was my immediate concern in being careful using it, not that it actually meant 'being a woman', 'cause anybody can be unpleasant and stupid. i'm not sure why else it could be used as an epithet for either gender.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

But i imagine, since none of my friends but Alex use this word, that my understanding is derived mostly from entertainment (and Alex), and god knows what that's done to my perception

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Entertainment? Like the Pink Indians thing?

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but probably not just that. Although that sort of thing makes me think terms like cunt and prick are only gendered in the same way that like, actress and actor are, where acting has nothing to do with your gender. Although you could argue that maintaining any gender distinction there at all is inevitably bad.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, I don't see that definition as a historical one at all, I see that as still current, existing now. I think it can be used as an epithet for either gender because you're either describing an unpleasant woman or a man who acts like an unpleasant woman. IDK the whole using it for either gender thing doesn't mean much to me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think it works the same way with racial slurs or something. I don't think people go around calling white people niggers to mean 'white people acting like unpleasant black people.' (though I've heard it used like "So don`t fool yourself you`re helping with your white liberal shit / If you care to take a closer look at the way things really stand / You`d see we`re all just niggers to the rulers of this land")

All I mean by historical associate is that the meaning of the word takes it's idea of 'unpleasantness' from something associated with femininity just like bitch does. They're still that knowledge that it was associated with women, but it doesn't mean woman anymore, denotationally. Or it's starting not to. I would like to see it not, because I think preserving that meaning is more conservative.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, I think I'd say somewhat different things about each word.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

?

Not sure what you're referring to.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I was trying to think of guys I would use 'bitch' in that sort of femininely aggressive way for...and I guess Jason comes to mind. Steve can also be a whiny bitch sometimes. I dunno, most people are kind of bitchy sometimes. I don't think it's always a bad thing.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of an insult bitch even is, these days.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

refering to different 'gendered insults', as you put it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

('cause for me, I'd use 'bitch'...actually I use it more as a verb than a noun, for ranting or whining or whatever, and it seems to lose immediate connotations of gender for me there. As for 'pussy', I've probably said it occasionally (outside of sexual contexts in which it is positive), for either boys or girls, for sb acting afraid or hesitant--my tone would probably be one of impatience.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

For me, bitch as a verb is pretty genderless. For describing a person, it can go either way according to intent and such. But at this point "bitch" has almost been reclaimed as a "feminist" label. Pussy is such a weird word that I don't know what to make of it, really, but I guess I consider it a lesser (softer?) version of cunt that has the option of being positive or neutral.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

pussy and cunt are totally different, man. cunts aren't afraid! um...going now.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

So one is like the lily-white damsel in distress and the other one is like the Amazon, right?

Well, whatev, I mean "lesser version" in how gendered/insulting it was in my estimation. I've never used either as a way to actually describe someone.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Anyway, I think it's obviously sexist to call someone a cunt simply because they're a woman, just like it's sexist to unfairly heap any criticism/insults/prejudice on someone because of their sex.