GunnerJ

Sure, Corwin, those exact words never crossed your lips. Here's what you did say:

Hmmm... So here you prop up Stranger as an example of Heinlein's later works which show he isn't sexist... which is pretty much what I claimed you said, and which you contradicted by claiming that the appearent sexism in this book was just another "product of his times" case, like those books he wrote in the fifties, even though you also claimed that Stranger wasn't an example of this, because it was written later. Is that it? I hope you can get your position cleared up. It seems now like you're arguing with me just for the joy of being contrary.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Corwin

No, you're just being overly simplistic... much like the movie that originally started this thread.

GunnerJ

Sure, Corwin. Whatever. Don't melt the chair you're sitting on with all that energy gravity is causing you to create, now.

Bookman

Thanks, Rim! I'd almost forgotten that one. Classic!

elwoodblues

So you don't believe Heinlein's female characters are, what, realistic?

You'd first have to disbelieve Virginia Heinlein, which would be quite a trick. By all accounts, she's something of a template for many of his female characters.

Now, if you're just saying that Heinlein's female characters are not reflective of MOST females, I'd sadly agree with you. Most females are not and never will be as masterful in their field as Tamara, will never be as intelligent as Laz or Lor, will never be self-confident enough to stroke their partner's ego once in awhile. Are these kind of people the norm? Certainly not. But I find myself in the odd position of defending against the 'feminist' assertion that these extraordinary females do not and can not exist.

Heinlein's female characters were never bitter about being born as women, and always seemed happiest when bearing children. I think that's the major problem most feminists have; they traditionally want to marginalize the reproductive role of women to the equal of men. Heinlein revels in the fact that women play a vastly more important role in reproduction than men (and in the idea that reproduction is one of the most important, if not THE most important, things we do in our life).

You won't run into many women like Tamara or Dorcas or Maureen. But wouldn't it be a treat? Isn't that what fiction should do? Maybe show us how things ARE in some way (Mrs. Grundy), but much more importantly show us how things OUGHT to be!

As for being a dirty old man... Given the standards of this country, I'd have to say guilty as charged. But I take that as more an indictment of the standards of this country than as an indictment of the man.

Bookman

Women get good roles in Heinlein's books. As you point out, they are strong-willed, capable and successful. I do not object to any of these things; quite the contrary, I applaud them.

However, when I read female characters in his works they do not quite ring true as women. This is not because of the roles that they have been given in his books; rather, it is a byproduct of their thoughts and motivations. Either they are like men with female bodies or they so revel in their "woman-ness" that they become a caricature.

I apologize that I can't provide you with any specifics right now. Its been a few years. Perhaps I should give the old fellow another go; after all, he is one of ours.

To each his own. I find Heinlein's recurring theme of father-daughter sexuality to be especially distasteful. I do not think that my personal standards are quite in line with those of the United States which I find needlessly puritanical. Despite that, I still think Heinlein's mores with regard to sex are unworthy of celebration.

De gustibus non disputandem est, I suppose.

Bookman

Corwin

The problem with Heinlein's views on sexuality is that they make us uncomfortable, because in a very real sense... he's more or less right. The problem with incest, assuming good birth control and more relaxed sexual mores in general, is that 'it's icky.'

Now for me, 'it's icky' is enough. I don't dispute that incest is icky. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that the only real rational argument against consentual incest is a genetic one, and with birth control this argument largely dries up.

But that doesn't make it any less icky. I'm a creature of my culture. I realize this.

elwoodblues

I think this is more due to the fact that Heinlein himself was male. I'd have a damned tough time writing a female character. Many of the female characters I've written seem like just that: men wearing women's bodies. I don't think I'm sexist because of that, and I don't think he's sexist because of it.

No worries; I think I know what you're talking about. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand where you're coming from. I've basically internalized most of his writing because I've read it so many times. I think I'm better able to take it on it's own terms because of that.

And if you're looking for an example of 'man in a woman's body' idea you mentioned, try 'I Will Fear No Evil' if you haven't already read it. Wonderfully ballsy. And it might clear up some of the gender issues you think he has, one way or the other. It's very gender- and sex-oriented.

I'm gonna have to agree with Corwin on this. Beyond genetics there is very little rational reason to have that taboo. And in the age of birth control (and soon genetic screening and engineering) the genetics excuse is pretty damned marginal. Yet it's one of our strongest taboos. You've got to respect him for standing up and saying it that LOUDLY, even if you don't agree with him.

I've read a lot of Ayn Rand. There are things in her belief system that I don't agree with. They never keep me up at night staring at the ceiling, wondering.

I've read a lot of Heinlein. There are things in his belief system that I don't agree with. They DO sometimes keep me up at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering.

That's about as clearly as I can put it.

Bookman

My original comment was: "Sexist or no, it is very clear to me from his writing (particularly the work of his later years) that Mr. Heinlein had no understanding of the female psyche or point of view." It may not have been clear what I meant, but I was deliberately setting aside the "sexist" label as non-important. I was merely describing why I'm not as entertained as others by RH's work.

I disagree with the premise that the only objection is genetic. There is no way that I can imagine that a parent and child could enter into a relationship as equals, even as adults. To me the situation is analagous to workplace affairs. Given that one member in the relationship has long held a position of authority of another, I don't see how consent can ever be freely given, and in reality these situations are anything but consentual.

Bookman

elwoodblues

This is the only other solid objection I've ever been able to think of, yeah. Heinlein handled it simply by presenting us with characters who were already virtually equals, even if they also happened to be parent and child (or brother and sister) and put them in a context (generally) of wildly different cultures than our own. I think this is a purely cultural thing, and therefore something that can change (as opposed to the genetic problem, which was systemic until science intervened).

The power of the taboo comes from genetics. Once that is removed, the remaining problems are relatively trivial.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: elwoodblues ]</p>