Previous Entry | Next Entry

One person's legitimizing

  • Jul. 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 PM
women, defiance
One complaint that often comes up when we/I gripe about something as feminists is "Why do you give this subject the time of day? Why don't you talk about something important?" Recently, with respect to my ire and the ire of others who agree with me over the Gor books (see previous post), I am hearing "Why do you legitimize these books by complaining about them? You'll just give them publicity and boost their sales."

Legitimize, is it?

There is another thing I often hear: "You chicks have it made. You got your women's liberation. All you have to do is cash in."

All I have to do is cash in. All I have to do is shut up and reap my liberated benefits. That means that female comic book heroes in my feminist, liberated time, are of all races, backgrounds, and body types. Women in entertainment don't have to sleep with producers to get a chance or a part, and are offered a rich array of characters, varying wildly from the Old Days' sexpot, innocent girlfriend, harried young married, and scream queen/future dumpster girl. They also have positions of power in the entertainment industry. The majority of heroes in kids' books, from picture books to teen lit, aren't boys--in fact, the hero division is fifty/fifty, and the bulk of women characters in picture books aren't nurturing moms, any more than the bulk of men characters in picture books aren't rescuing, always-right dads. There is no music in which women are labeled hos and ordered to do sex acts in music as they hump male stars for the camera.

The chief cause of death for a pregnant woman isn't her spouse or boyfriend; the majority of rapes still don't go unreported through fear or shame. Domestic abuse is at an all-time low. So are eating disorders, self-injury, and suicide among girls and young women. Fashion magazines are presenting more balanced body images among their models.

No? We don't have these things? But I haven't gotten to equal pay for equal work, the vanishing of the glass ceiling for female executives and academics, unions for club dancers and sex workers, positive study and work environments for women in science and technical fields, and the upholding of Valerie Plame's case because the judge said it was wrong to flush a woman's life down the crapper because you didn't like what her husband said. Then there's the funding of family planning clinics for the developing world that includes contraception and abortion for women worn out by childbearing . . .

I'm not cashing in?

Then I still get to point out that women are abused every hour of every day, and the republication of works that advocate any man's right to enslave and abuse any woman in any way he pleases in my right and my obligation until the battering of women and any work that gives open or tacit approval to it are considered to be so disreputable, so despicable, that no one would own up to the act or possession of works condoning it for fear of the hate and rejection of his peers. I will consider accusations that I am helping to legitimize these works as simply attempts to silence me, because I make the person who says them uncomfortable, or because they have such contempt for "feminists" that they will dismiss what I, or they, say in any terms they think will make us squirm.

Awareness is far more important than legitimization. My battle isn't over yet. I will risk people going out to read these books over what I say (and I hope the books make them as queasy as they made me) if I can wake up others to the fact that this stuff, which advocates violence against women and still has a following, is being republished. Let people who were never abused dismiss the books or claim the violence "wasn't that bad until Book X". They aren't the subjects of Norman's hate. I wonder if blacks reading the TURNER DIARIES or Jews reading MEIN KAMPF discuss the problems in writing style with such contemptuous ease.

We women aren't supposed to raise a stink about these piddling little books that others wiser than we have judged unimportant. We're supposed to put up and shut up--because we still haven't had that liberation, and apparently people still think they can tell us what issues are supposed to be important, and what aren't, and what "unimportant" things we're legitimizing by daring to point out they are vile.



J. E. Remy in his blog entry Sexist, Degrading Bullshit II: Comic Book Fiction not only presents us with some more highly illustrative quotes from the Gor oeuvre, but he also gives us addresses for protest letters, including that for Dark Horse. Here's to you, J. E. Remy, my Main Man for July 2007!

update 8/25/07
I edited out a question asking if the slaves were of other minorities than simply the female, when it was pointed out to me that this creates an opening for an assumption of rivalry between groups who should always be allies. Our oppression is no better and no less than anyone else's, and I don't need the comparison to make my point--thus the change in the paragraph that now begins "We women."

Tags:

Comments

[info]spectratrucha wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 01:46 am (UTC)
Saying something against injustice in society or works of art is never wasted breath, and it only gives true legitimacy when the criticism is unfounded. "Don't like it, don't read it," is a poor slogan when our whole lives are built on discourse around what we see, experience, and read.

Thanks for the follow-up.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:42 am (UTC)
>>Thanks for the follow-up.<<

You're welcome--and thanks for the emo support!
[info]kadymae wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:17 am (UTC)
The chief cause of death for a pregnant woman isn't her spouse or boyfriend; the majority of rapes still don't go unreported through fear or shame.

[massive sarcasm]
But Tammy don't you know that men are 4x more likely to be murdered than women?!

Oh wait, the circumstances under which men and women are murdered, the motive, the reason tends to be very different?

Oh and men commit more crimes than women to begin with?

Not at all relevant to the discussion. No. Really. Numbers don't lie!
[/massive sarcasm]
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:39 am (UTC)
>>[massive sarcasm]
But Tammy don't you know that men are 4x more likely to be murdered than women?!

Oh wait, the circumstances under which men and women are murdered, the motive, the reason tends to be very different?

Oh and men commit more crimes than women to begin with?

Not at all relevant to the discussion. No. Really. Numbers don't lie!
[/massive sarcasm]<<

Yeah, I saw that particular dose of happy crappy. I was making ready for two weeks' travel and setting forth, or I might have unloaded. I hope you cut that guy a new one!

Numbers don't lie--but the people manipulating them fuck them like polecats.

[info]gurmpy wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:38 am (UTC)
You. Are wonderful. I am once again delighted that you have been my educator in feminist ideals since age 12.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:40 am (UTC)
There's way better tha me all over the place. I'm just glad to have got you started--I have a feeling you're going to kick some major ass!
[info]glamazonwarrior wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:57 am (UTC)
Is it okay for me to link to this? It spells out everything so well.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 08:14 pm (UTC)
>>Is it okay for me to link to this? <<

Yes, of course! Always!
[info]arcana_j wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 03:15 am (UTC)
I frequently thank all the gods I can think of, for the internet. Wihout it, I'd have never known I wasn't the lone, angry feminist in a wilderness of sexist dumbassery.

Tammy, I'm glad you're near me in that wilderness.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 08:18 pm (UTC)
>>Tammy, I'm glad you're near me in that wilderness.<<

The feeling is quite splendidly mutual!

The internet does have its advantages. It's taught me that there are fewer of the reactionary, kneejerk feminists of my college days, and more of the intelligent ones with a sense of humor and broad interests. :happy sigh::
[info]diewachen.blogspot.com wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 03:32 am (UTC)
Thanks
Proud to be your Main Man for July 2007.

Just to let you know, I will be following up with any reaction from official
sources as they reply to letters of concern. I've been writing like a madman, but if anyone gets a reply before I do, feel free to send me a line.

I'm also gathering additional addresses to direct protest letters.
[info]silent_muse06 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 04:29 am (UTC)
I was going to wait to reply until the morning, but what you are saying corresponds to some things I'm dealing with.

Two things to know: I live in the South, and I work as a cashier at a Dairy Queen. It's my job to be polite to costumers. This is hard for me, because tact does not come easily for me, but I need the money for school, so I play pretend. And I tell you, it's damned hard to be polite when I've got redneck after redneck tromping into the restaurant calling me "Honey," "Sweetie," "Girl (or Little Girl)" or worse yet, "Baby Doll." I am not sweet. I am not their girl, and I am not a little girl. I am a nineteen year old young woman currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in psychology--on a full scholarship. I am going to go to grad school, and I am going to be the first woman in my family to hold a doctorate. That's who I am. And even if these can't bring themselves to recognize the fact that I am an intelligent human being, they could at least call me by my name. I have a name tag. I have a very common name. It's not rocket science.

If it's a little old man with his family calling me honey or sweetie, fine. I still don't care for it, but he's an old man and he's going to die soon anyway. Other than that, there's no excuse. One moral paragon stared at my chest the entire time he was giving his order. Apparently he had his restaurants confused. He was at a Dairy Queen, not a Hooters.

People tell me there's no need for feminism anymore, and I think about the situations I've described. I think about the man who told me I shouldn't have children because I plan to pursue a career. I think about the way I hear men at my college talk about girls. And, I think about the way I get looked at when I mention I am a feminist. They think it's ungodly. I say that is ungodly NOT to be a feminist. Christ was all about equality.

Anyway. That's my rant for tonight. I really enjoy reading your posts.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:54 am (UTC)
We still need feminism
The reason why feminism gets a big rap is the media. They portray feminism as crazy woman, who think men are dirt and if someone was to open the door for us we would jump him. This picture has twisted many people's minds on what feminism really means: A belief that all woman should have the same rights as a man and should be treated equally. In reality, we still need laws to protect are rights because there are still people out there who hold these discriminatory ( I'am so mad I can't spell right) values. The south is supposed to be known for having men with good manners not chauvinism. And as you said Christ was all about equality. He would have never treated a woman like that guy treated you.

Oh and one more thing. Are society is changing. Only one person bringing home the bacon isn't enough any more, and saying woman should not have children if they pursue careers is an insult. In the Medieval ages woman spinned and mended clothes, cook, tend the garden, and whatever other chore they had to do to help their families survive as they were WATCHING THE KIDS! If they could do it without technology, I think women today can have kids and careers with a lower infant mortality rate.

Aly
Re: We still need feminism - (Anonymous) - Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:57 am (UTC) Expand
Sorry, that was the big red button - [info]ricevermicelli - Jul. 23rd, 2007 01:56 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]shadowspun - Jul. 23rd, 2007 11:42 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]thetathx1138 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 04:51 am (UTC)
A few points:

1) It's safe to say that no woman has a full understanding of what it's like to be a man in this society. This is not to say we necessarily have it bad, just that unless you have a penis, you're not going to fully get it.

What do you do when a guy weighs in on an issue who obviously doesn't fully understand your viewpoint? Do you try to correct him, or do you simply dismiss him? Most people take the latter option and, frankly, it cuts both ways.


2) Another sword that cuts both ways: most women don't fully understand what it's like to be a man in America.

This isn't to say men have it more badly across the board in our society, but quite frankly, too many people of all types instantly equate straight white male with "The Oppressor" and think that somehow that skit about Eddie Murphy being a white man came true while they weren't looking. Women are, by far, the worst; quite frankly, I've had way too many experiences where I've posted a reasonable objection to some point or another and been bombarded with comments that were sexist and ignorant in the extreme.

Honestly, anybody takes the advantages they have for granted while resenting the advantages others have. That's just human nature, and quite frankly it's a fair question: if somebody gets something that you can't have, you should ALWAYS ask "Why can't I have that?" Sometimes there's a logical answer...sometimes not.

I don't think women "have it easy" by any means...but, on the other hand, you might have advantages that men feel keenly that you never even think about, and I'm not talking about "womb envy" either. On issues from divorce, to sexual assault, to simple resentment over what can sometimes feel like unfair advantages...let's just say that the issue is almost never as simple as it seems.

Sticking to entertainment: consider sitcoms. Take a good hard look at how, say, "normal" men are depicted on network TV...it's pretty degrading and insulting. Men are presented largely as football-watching, beer-swilling children who must be strictly kept in line by a mother figure (whom they have sex with, although this is rarely discussed), lest they do something stupid like strap a jet-engine to their car or blow the rent on poker. How often does the dramatic conflict come from the woman screwing up, saying something unintentionally insulting, or doing something stupid?

Now, some women have certainly noticed this, but it hasn't filtered into the mainstream media nearly as much as complaints over how women are depicted. Trust me, men notice, especially when they're told they're "privileged." I'm not saying it's a reasonable reaction, but I think you can see how knees might jerk.


3) If we're working on a macro scale...yeah, there are more important issues than Gor reprints. On the other hand, you've just blog-posted about them, which doesn't take much effort, so I don't see where this complaint comes in.
[info]graphicnovelist wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:43 am (UTC)
This isn't to say men have it more badly across the board in our society, but quite frankly, too many people of all types instantly equate straight white male with "The Oppressor" and think that somehow that skit about Eddie Murphy being a white man came true while they weren't looking. Women are, by far, the worst; quite frankly, I've had way too many experiences where I've posted a reasonable objection to some point or another and been bombarded with comments that were sexist and ignorant in the extreme.

Dude. Not-nice replies in LJ or blog discussions does NOT equal the stuff any of the examples in the main posting. It's the Internet, Jack. People aren't gonna like you for any number of reasons. Learn to roll with it.

I don't think women "have it easy" by any means...but, on the other hand, you might have advantages that men feel keenly that you never even think about, and I'm not talking about "womb envy" either. On issues from divorce, to sexual assault, to simple resentment over what can sometimes feel like unfair advantages...let's just say that the issue is almost never as simple as it seems.

Oh please, please please, open this can labelled "parental rights". Nobody's brought it up this round and it's feeling EVER so lonely. I promise it's not full of worms...


Sticking to entertainment: consider sitcoms. Take a good hard look at how, say, "normal" men are depicted on network TV...it's pretty degrading and insulting. Men are presented largely as football-watching, beer-swilling children who must be strictly kept in line by a mother figure (whom they have sex with, although this is rarely discussed), lest they do something stupid like strap a jet-engine to their car or blow the rent on poker. How often does the dramatic conflict come from the woman screwing up, saying something unintentionally insulting, or doing something stupid?

Now, some women have certainly noticed this, but it hasn't filtered into the mainstream media nearly as much as complaints over how women are depicted. Trust me, men notice, especially when they're told they're "privileged." I'm not saying it's a reasonable reaction, but I think you can see how knees might jerk.


'Member when I said that people being mean to you on the Internet doesn't equate to "Oh noes, pity the poor, put-upon white man"? Neither does King of Queens, Just Married, Two and a Half Men or whatever other lame-ass sitcoms that get brought up whenever this argument rolls around. I'm a white dude from a privileged background; Leah Remini bitching out Kevin James ain't gonna change the fact that I have advantages based solely on societaly's perception of me that other people won't have.

(And frankly, this perennial example is as annoying as hell to anyone with a basic appreciation for the history of comedy; boorish partner/"level-headed" partner parings for comedic effect are as old as the Epic of Gilgemesh; the plumbing changes, but it comes out the same in the end).

(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 23rd, 2007 01:37 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]graphicnovelist - Jul. 23rd, 2007 01:52 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:25 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]graphicnovelist - Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:42 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 24th, 2007 10:50 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]goldjadeocean - Jul. 23rd, 2007 06:29 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 24th, 2007 11:20 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]lilfoxiq - Jul. 23rd, 2007 08:23 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 24th, 2007 11:08 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]_corruption_ - Jul. 25th, 2007 12:02 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 25th, 2007 01:14 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]_corruption_ - Jul. 25th, 2007 01:40 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]thetathx1138 - Jul. 25th, 2007 03:24 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]_corruption_ - Jul. 25th, 2007 04:10 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ronin_kakuhito - Jul. 25th, 2007 06:18 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ronin_kakuhito - Jul. 25th, 2007 06:35 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]jonquil - Jul. 26th, 2007 04:13 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]alexjay wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:19 am (UTC)
Kick. Ass.

If ever you come to Philcon, I owe you a drink for this entry alone, never mind all the other good writing you've done.
[info]kitmf wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:53 am (UTC)
Another blog entry - just possibly somewhat relevant.
http://mamacate.typepad.com/mamacate/2007/07/yoniknittomommy.html
[info]lost_angelwings wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 06:27 am (UTC)
I dunno why ppl need to justify putting their efforts into things at all. :\

Nobody questions mr. Gor-Author about why he put in so much effort writing those books. Did the world rly need them? Shouldn't he be off curing world hunger or something?

Yet when ppl complain it's like "OMG GO SAVE A KITTEN!"

>.>

I'm also tired of hearing ppl say that ethnic minorities/sexual minorities/women/etc have it "made" now and that things are great, and that all complaints are just trying to "unbalance" things. >.>

Do ppl HONESTLY believe that the world is super fair now?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 06:37 am (UTC)
Gor Books
I've never read these books, never really wanted to, although I remember seeing them on the bookshelves of stores when I was a kid. I did a little researching on the web (Gor fansites), and simply put, this series looks to be really awful, immature, sicko drek. Who the hell would want this crap reprinted? This has nothing to do with being an ardent feminist - this has to do with basic respect for fellow human beings (which is really the underpinning of feminism). I'm not a book burner or rabid censor, but yeesh.
[info]lilfoxiq wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 08:11 am (UTC)
You know, I spoke to my boyfriend about the first post and then I read your latest to him. He and I agree you are absolutely spot on. When a certain ethnic group/socioeconomic class/etc criticizes things like this, they are speaking up. When women do it, it is bitching. A year or so back there was a JC Penny ad. The kid or baby would be doing something wrong (throwing food, coloring on the wall) and the dad would say “Where is your mother?” And where is she at? JC Penny’s sale. My BF and I just moaned at the gender roles. Because, you know, men are completely incapable of raising children. Those silly women should take the babies shopping so the poor man doesn’t lose his marbles by misbehaving kids. It was a shot at both men and women, really. The subtle mass media gender role thing is not as blatant, acceptable, and worth “bitching” about. How could those Gor books be something unimportant? It’s the same reason I can’t read Anne Rice’s erotica. Rape is just plum not sexy, sorry.
[info]tekanji wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 09:20 am (UTC)
Well said.
[info]gailsimone1 wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 01:31 pm (UTC)
Can I be you when I grow smart?

Gail
[info]kurukurushoujo wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 02:27 pm (UTC)
I just want to say that was a great piece you wrote there. Especially this: ". Let people who were never abused dismiss the books or claim the violence "wasn't that bad until Book X". They aren't the subjects of Norman's hate. I wonder if blacks reading the TURNER DIARIES or Jews reading MEIN KAMPF discuss the problems in writing style with such contemptuous ease."

I've never heard of those Gor books before it hit the blogosphere and I've got to say that it scares me that some people obviously find it okay to not criticize such books because of freedom of speech. I mean "freedom of speech"- that's the same speech that has allowed racists, sexists and hate mongers to reign free for centuries.
[info]desdenova wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 03:35 pm (UTC)
If the slaves in these books were black, would they be republished? If they were Asian, Native American, Latino? But they're women, and we're not supposed to raise a stink about these piddling little books that others wiser that we have judged unimportant.

I'd like to believe that if the horrors of Gor were white-supremecist rather than male-supremecist, then no respectable publisher would think about bringing them back into print, or that if one did, the resulting public outcry would be universally against it.

However, my experiences both on the Internet and off lead me to believe that the situation would be exactly the same.
[info]greree wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2007 03:54 am (UTC)
Yes, they would.
Sorry for the extremely late reply, but I just now found these threads while researching censorship, in recognition of National Banned Book Week. There ARE black slaves in the Gor series, as well as Asians, Native Americans, Latinos, Inuit, Arabs, and a few others I haven't yet identified. There are also both male and female slaves.
[info]skutir wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 04:28 pm (UTC)
I linked here from a friend's journal, and thought, "hey, this is an interesting blog, I'll have to friend her."
[info]skutir wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 04:38 pm (UTC)
Holy crap, I didn't realize you were Tamora Pierce. I haven't read your books myself, but I had a friend in grad school named Alanna and when I saw a book by that name, I had to buy it for her. She loved it. It was a lovely feeling to have found a book that seemed to be written just for her, with her name on it and everything. :-)

I just remembered that, and it might have played into the major premise of my second novel, which is about a girl named Samara finding a book named Samara and getting sucked into it (not literally).
[info]ravelda wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 07:57 pm (UTC)
Ahem. If I may draw your attention to this thread on the female characters in Harry Potter? http://www.verlakay.com/boards/index.php?topic=20425.0. Certain people are happy with females always in supporting roles for males.
[info]happynotafish wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 08:11 pm (UTC)
You rock. The world needs more people like you.
[info]ravelda wrote:
Jul. 23rd, 2007 09:35 pm (UTC)
Wait. Forget Harry Potter. Tamora, have you read TWILIGHT by Stephenie Meyer? It features the epitome of a spineless damsel-in-distress as the "heroine." It's bestselling, and an unbelievable number of girls call it their favorite book. It makes me gnash my teeth.
[info]shadowspun wrote:
Jul. 24th, 2007 12:07 am (UTC)
Ugh! I couldn't even finish it. I'm not even sure how far I got. I was hoping he'd go all vampy and kill her, but no, they survived to star in another "tragic tale". Spare me, and I actually like vampire romances.
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Jul. 24th, 2007 12:26 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ravelda - Jul. 24th, 2007 04:01 am (UTC) Expand
[info]_corruption_ wrote:
Jul. 25th, 2007 12:05 pm (UTC)
You had me until that last paragraph. I think this article explains why better than I really could.

But yeah, it is kinda mind-boggling to see how popular Gor still is. :/
[info]jonquil wrote:
Jul. 26th, 2007 04:03 pm (UTC)
There's money to be made from feminism?

Damn, where's my share? I still have my ERA bracelet!
(Anonymous) wrote:
Sep. 9th, 2007 09:19 am (UTC)
Let's Celebrate Banned Book Week: September 29–October 6, 2007 -- Free People Read Freely ®
You wrote:

"My battle isn't over yet. I will risk people going out to read these books over what I say (and I hope the books make them as queasy as they made me) if I can wake up others to the fact that this stuff, which advocates violence against women and still has a following, is being republished. Let people who were never abused dismiss the books or claim the violence "wasn't that bad until Book X". They aren't the subjects of Norman's hate. I wonder if blacks reading the TURNER DIARIES or Jews reading MEIN KAMPF discuss the problems in writing style with such contemptuous ease.

We women aren't supposed to raise a stink about these piddling little books that others wiser than we have judged unimportant. We're supposed to put up and shut up--because we still haven't had that liberation, and apparently people still think they can tell us what issues are supposed to be important, and what aren't, and what "unimportant" things we're legitimizing by daring to point out they are vile."

"Norman's hate"? The Gor books "advocate violence against women"?

Have you ever learned what a-l-l-e-g-o-r-y is Tammy? Have you ever learned what a philosopher's "root metaphor" is? Have you ever read Nancy Friday's "My Secret Garden," which confirmed (way back in the 1970s) that the "rape fantasy" (on which, in prettified form, the multi-billion-dollar-a-year romance novel industry is based), is one of the most common sexual fantasies of women? Are you hoping to be featured as a discussion item in this year's observation of Banned Books Week http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm, because I really think you've EARNED such a spot with this post, not to mention enrollment in a remedial reading course focusing on imaginative literature.

Have you ever bothered to double-check your baseless fulminations against John Norman by, say, actually trying to find out what the man himself has to say about the fictitious acts of aggression committed toward fictitious female characters on the fictitious planet in these science fiction novels? Since it appears that would tax your evidently limited resources, allow me to do a little of such work for you:

“The fact, of course, that rape is a common sexual fantasy of women does not indicate that women, in any general sense, wish to be raped. They would surely, at the very least, wish to choose the time and the place and the circumstances and the man. Rape, as a sociological reality, is commonly an ugly, brutal, unpleasant, sickening, horrifying, vicious act. It degrades the man and doesn’t do the woman much good either. Not only does she receive little or no pleasure, but the whole affair has no more intrinsic worth than a mugging. Further, sadly, she is likely to be brutalized and, at the least, intimidated. This is to take advantage of a weaker creature, who cannot adequately, in most cases, defend herself. The rapist, unless there are some extenuating factors, such as severe mental illness, scarcely comes up to scratch for a human being. To pick on a woman because she is smaller and weaker, is much the same thing as to pick on a child or animal; or it is much the same as a young man striking an old man; or a large, strong man, beating a small, weak man; it is just not something that is worthy to do. It is not that it needs to be a “sick” thing to do, though doubtless in some cases it is; it is rather that there is just no manhood in it.” (John Norman, Imaginative Sex (1974), pp 52-3)

May I suggest you start by reading that book, then by reading "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Touchstone/dp/B000QYAMPS/ref=sr_1_6/002-3329025-5669662?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189328908&sr=8-6

Very best regards,

Charlotte
[info]salabra wrote:
May. 15th, 2009 10:14 am (UTC)
Keep Fighting, Tammy
Well said!

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi