Terrell Miller wrote:
> lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Dreamer wrote:
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > In the books, the only women who are allowed to be happy are those
who
> > have subjected themselves to men's will on all levels. This is
hardly a
> > healthy outlook.
>
> interesting little spin you've put on it, sport: "allowed to be"
happy.
>
> That's totally wrong, and it shows that you haven't exactly spent
much
> time actually reading and comprehending what Norman actually wrote.
> Which is no surprise, the vast majority of the critics of the Gor
series
> have either never read them, or they just spent a few minutes
flipping
> randomly through one randomly chosen novel looking for snippets that
> seem to support their own political viewpoint.
>
> Here's what Norman actually says, very clearly and distinctly: women
> *are* happy when they are subservient to men. They *are not* happy
when
> they try to act just like men.
>
> It has nothing to do with them being "allowed to" be anything at all.
In
> the Gorean world, free women are in fact held in very high esteem,
> indeed they are basically pampered. They can, for all intents and
> purposes, be anything and do anything they want to (given the strict
> caste system and technological limitations that apply to *everyone*
on
> Gor, not just free women).
>
> Norman's premise is, ironically, the exact opposite of what you think
it
> is: he says that in this environment women are *allowed* to be happy
and
> free, *but* they are not. They only "find themselves" by serving a
man.
>
> As Dreamer mentioned, you may very well disagree with Norman's
premise.
> But I would suggest to you that before you disagree with his
thoughts,
> you might want to make an effort to actually understand what it is
that
> you are actually disagreeing with. Otherwise you're just talking out
> your ass in complete ignorance of your subject matter.
>
> Comprende?
>
> --
> Terrell Miller
> millerto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
> -Paul Simon RE: George Harrison
I read about a half a dozen of the books. I don't see what you see.
That's the way of the world, comprende? There was in one a female thief
who claimed she would never submit to the hero. The hero offered to
take her out to a field and let her go, after he cut her hamstrings!
Another woman who tried to leave the hero got caught and found by the
hero later enslaved in a tavern. She asked that he buy her and
mentioned that she'd withheld the knowledge of some special talent she
had so the hero would be able to get a good price. The next day, the
hero left and let the innkeeper know about the talent so that the woman
would get beaten for holding out on her owner and master. (Read these
things YEARS ago and can't remember the details about the talent.)
Norman believes that ALL women are happy when they've submitted
themselves to a man. Norman is wrong. SOME women may well be happy as
unthinking drones doing whatever their lord and master demands, but
anyone who wants to think for themselves is going to chafe under that
collar. (A very real, iron collar which Norman said should bring a
woman a sense of security as she feels it lock around her neck!)
|
