<lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1112348534.823099.128960@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dreamer wrote:
> > <lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:1112266294.477564.98090@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I'm not saying none would. I'm saying that that's ALL you'll see in
> > > Norman's world. Subservient women succeed, independent women are
> > > psychologically (sp) beaten down until they become subservient.
> >
> > Untrue. There are rare counterexamples but they do happen.
> >
> > >And, in Norman's mind-view, this is a good thing!
> >
> > It is, and it is because in the Gorean mind view people are happiest
> when
> > they follow their natural inclinations. Since it is Norman's opinion
> that it
> > is natural for men to dominate and women to submit, that's how people
> are
> > happiest in his books. Believe it or don't, as seems best to you, but
> don't
> > castigate him for being consistent.
> >
> We're past that. I've already acknowledged the "hypocrite" was not the
> best choice of words. "Nasty," "evil" and "mysoginist" (sp) seem to fit
> so much better!
I say, don't hold back like that: it's not good for you. :)
Let's look at your words:
1) "Nasty"
"Nasty," in this sense would seem to indicate unpleasant, mean, cruel,
that
sort of thing. Well, there's a lot of that in the Gor books: they're
adventure novels and Gor is a preindustrial world where life, although
much
better than in most equivalent Terran cultures, is still often best
described as "nasty, brutish, and short." (Well, not necessarily short,
what
with the Serums and all, but you know what I mean.)
Are you faulting the books for being too unpleasant as adventure settings?
Some of the things that happen to Fafnir and the Gray Mouser, or Conan,
make
Tarl Cabot's worst day look like a walk in the park, and not Central Park,
either. I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.
2) "Evil"
There are evil characters in the books. There are good characters in the
books. There are morally ambiguous characters in the books (Tarl Cabot,
the
central character in most of them, for instance.) Again, they're adventure
novels. Adventure novels don't waste time with Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Normal
and
their 2.5 children in the suburbs, or the local cultural equivalent
thereof.
Good guys need bad guys to fight. Good guys have to struggle with evil.
That's how this works.
3) "Misogynist"
Here we encounters one of the crisper examples of Dreamer's Law of
Discussion:
"All discussions are about definitions."
I categorically deny that either the Gor novels or their author are
mysogynistic. I can say this with assurance because by my definition
acknowledging the fundamental differences between men and women and acting
accordingly is not mysogynistic. In fact, by my definition treating women
like men is itself, mysogynistic, in that it is cruel and causes
frustration
and unnecessary pain. (Likewise treating men like women.)
I have not met Dr. Lange myself but I have read correspondance that he has
had with others, I have read his nonfiction works, and I have read
transcripts of his public remarks on various occasions. He does not hate
women. He likes women. (And, incidentally, he is not an advocate of even
most forms of BDSM: he's rather a reactionary on the topic.) Similarly,
while women suffer in the Gor books (as do men, in fact more so) it is not
done out of any rationale that women deserve to suffer: it is simply
incident to the plot, and most women who so suffer are redeemed in the
end.
By your definition, so far as I can tell from what you've said thus far,
it
is mysogynistic to treat women differently from men in any way. If I am in
error, please correct me. Once I have confirmed what you mean by the word,
I
shall be happy to address the issue further.
D
|
