Miévillians discussion
This topic is about
The Left Hand of Darkness
Le Guin: Left Hand of Darkness
>
3] LHOD Chapter 7 to end of chapter 10 The Question of Secks to Conversations ..
date
newest »
newest »
OK, as the token male in this discussion, so far, I'll put my neck on the block! What's so appalling about it? In my experience, that is pretty much true in general.
Traveller wrote: ...are not spoken by Genly Ai, but by... a woman, which I find quite appalling..."Ooh. Good catch, and sorry for the misattribution.
Derek wrote: "OK, as the token male in this discussion, so far, I'll put my neck on the block! What's so appalling about it? In my experience, that is pretty much true in general."I think it is an appaling thing for a woman to, after all of the prejudice that we have had to cope with, to find being judged as a human being instead of by the fact that she lacks a penis and has a pair of mammaries, "appaling". I would have hoped that all women would prefer to be judged as human beings and not as some alien species from the planet Venus...
I would have hoped that we are humans first and foremost.
I can understand a man finding it "appalling" when we are judged by our humanity instead of our gender, but, as I said, after all the prejudice and restrictions and repression we women have suffered, I would have hoped that other women would, like me, want to be judged as human beings before being judged by the standards set for their gender. (Standards usually set by males, may I add...)
Traveller wrote: "I think it is an appaling thing for a woman ... to find being judged as a human being ... "appaling"."Ah, well, that part I take as sarcastic, as Nataliya did. Though I also don't think Le Guin said anything like "lacks a penis and has a pair of mammaries". I took "femininity" in the way she had used it throughout the book, which is far more attitude than appearance. Even in kemmer, Le Guin glosses over the physical attributes.
Personally, I would not be appalled. I can't claim to be a paragon of any virtue, but I think I'd score higher for "humanity" than "masculinity".
Yes, my dear Derek, I do not doubt that. Maybe I sound a bit too carried away there. To try to make it clearer, I am appalled at her sense of feeling appalled, I feel bad that a woman should feel appalled at not being judged according to how 'feminine' she is, whatever that is supposed to mean.I think I was being a bit sarcastic about the "mine is bigger than yours, therefore I am more of a man, and somehow that makes me more human", attitude, which is not quite the type of thing that women traditionally engaged in. Well, not before plastic surgeons started peddling their silicone, anyway... (and now women have joined with men in that particular competition... ;) )
..but apologies for that--I know not everybody engages in that.
Flippancy aside, though, after all, what is a 'masculine' and what is a 'feminine' attitude? You don't perhaps think that such labels is part of stereotyping?
..and the whole point of a book like this, I should think, should be to move away from 'masculine' and 'feminine' stereotypes. Why do we have to behave in either a 'masculine' or a 'feminine' way to be accepted by society? To be judged worthy? Is that quite fair to every individual?
What about women who don't have a traditional 'feminine' temperament, and ditto with males who don't have a 'masculine' temperament? Are they abnormal? Are they drek? Or, are we all simply human like everyone else?
I do think Le Guin achieves a lot of this btw, but she was also still the product of her time.
I think this all just goes back to my comment to Nataliya that her sarcasm is too subtle for me. I think that's what Le Guin was doing, but you are still appalled - so I don't think she's clear enough.I don't think you sound "too carried away". I think as a reputed "feminist SF author", we have a right to expect a little more of her.
Sorry Derek, I hope you caught my last edits to my post above. But yes, you are right, I did expect more of her, though on the other hand-- if you look at the year in which this was written, perhaps she was being pretty brave for her time.
Maybe I have grown too used to my priveleges and to my liberal environment.
Traveller wrote: "Sorry Derek, I hope you caught my last edits to my post above. ...Flippancy aside, though, after all, what is a 'masculine' and what is a 'feminine' attitude? You don't perhaps think that such labels is part of stereotyping?"
I hadn't actually seen that bit.
Stereotypes exist in the first place because people really act that way. They are self-reinforcing, but we can rise above them. Many men really do think that strength, virility, and, yes, size, really matter. I've even read you saying that you like being "girly" at times!
I agree that the point of a story like this should be to move away from the stereotypes, but then she goes right on to reinforce them.
Derek wrote: "Stereotypes exist in the first place because people really act that way. They are self-reinforcing, but we can rise above them. Many men really do think that strength, virility, and, yes, size, really matter. I've even read you saying that you like being "girly" at times!I agree that the point of a story like this should be to move away from the stereotypes, but then she goes right on to reinforce them.
.."
Okay, I admit that I do like being girly in certain senses, but I honestly see that as only a personal preference and expressed differently by each individual. In my case, I think it is simply that I am a rather 'arty' individual, and therefore have certain aesthetic tastes, but I don't see why a male cannot as well, in his own way, like pretty things. Or why a male cannot be, for instance, nurturing. I think the "masculinity" and "femininity" is just window dressing.
How do I know this? Well, take my own parents. They were pretty much into the traditional roles- he seemed overtly dominant, and she very passive and submissive, but, back at the ranch, she eventually developed a kind of passive aggression (never breaking the 'feminine' mold) and he was a MUCH more nurturing parent than she was... so I personally say "pah!" to traditional gender stereotypes.
I see exactly the same thing with for instance, stereotypes re maths and spatial abilities. Even if a girl has better maths skills than her brother, it will be encouraged in the boy and discouraged in the girl, which is such a shame.
So yeah, I don't act 'butch', if that is what you were trying to get at, but neither is my dream man exactly a caveman. I claim leniency for any perceived 'girliness'. To be fair, my dream male is cultured and educated etc, and doesn't run around swinging a cudgel, so... (Well, not in general company, I mean. What one does privately is of course your own affair... ;D )
Joking aside, I'm basically trying to say that we are all individuals, and shouldn't be expected to behave in stereotype ways, but I'm especially thinking about activities that girls were not tradionally allowed to do. (Or vice versa with males, too.)
Traveller wrote: "So yeah, I don't act 'butch', if that is what you were trying to get at..."No, I was saying that you apparently do want your "femininity appreciated", and a great many men (imo by far the majority) want their "virility regarded" (not me - there is no measure by which my virility is going to be regarded as anything but negligible). So that part of Le Guin's statement seems, if not universally true, true of "here & now". It's only the idea of it being appalling to be treated otherwise that is arguable.
Derek wrote: "Traveller wrote: "So yeah, I don't act 'butch', if that is what you were trying to get at..."No, I was saying that you apparently do want your "femininity appreciated", and a great many men (imo ..."
Oh! Okay, misunderstanding. What I had meant to say, is that I don't like a man to act "butch" either, that to me, not acting with machismo, or acting with it, is not necessary for either gender in my personal view.
So, when I was conceding to be 'girly' I wasn't saying that I subscribe to the idea that I need to be that way. I originally used it in conjunction with saying that I am a tomboy. Originally, in whichever thread it was, when I called myself a girly-girl tomboy, I assumed that what is generally meant by the term, that it is a person who likes to extend herself over all possibilities open to her, without acting out machismo.
So, maybe a better way to say it, is that although my personality encompasses the traditionally feminine qualities of liking pretty things, and of having quite a strong nurturing instinct, I also like doing things that are traditionally boy-ish, for instance, flying and scuba-ing and all sorts of adventurous and exploratious (I know not really a word) things, also things like building my own PC system and so forth.
So, "girly-girl tomboy", was supposed to give you the impression that I don't subscribe to a specific stereotype.. ("Girly" is of course a stereotype, but it's easier to say it with one word than to explain in long sentences).
But anyway, as said before, the manner in which you walk and talk is not the problem--women could always walk and talk like men if they wanted to. The thing that we really want, is the equal opportunity to do the things that men are allowed to do.
So much I agree with here. I guess I'm a somewhat girly tomboy, too, though I agree that the real issue is choice and equality.Things have certainly improved since I was a child, but the danger is that it's seen as "job done" and feminism is often a dirty word, restricted to fringe campaigners.
I was cheered by a student campaign to publicise personal statements of "I need feminism because...", including some men. Here is a sample, though other universities are doing it too: http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2013/04/23...
(One of them is my son!)
Traveller wrote: "But yes, you are right, I did expect more of her, though on the other hand-- if you look at the year in which this was written, per..."I think the year has to be taken into account. I read it not that long after it came out and remember thinking then that it would be so cool to be seen and treated like a person three-quarters of the time, rather than a female all the time. The ideas in this book felt radical then... now of course, well, as Cecily says above "the danger is that it's seen as 'job done'."
Cecily wrote: "I was cheered by a student campaign to publicise personal statements of "I need feminism because...", including some men. Here is a sample, though other universities are doing it too"
Very disconcerting to read all the hateful comments underneath though. I have a horrible feeling that misogyny will never die.
Yes, disappointing, but online comments are often lowest common denominator. Except on Good Reads. ;)
Ruth wrote: "I think the year has to be taken into account. I read it not that long after it came out and remember thinking then that it would be so cool to be seen and treated like a person three-quarters of the time, rather than a female all the time. .."Yes, absolutely!
Btw, does anyone else think Tibe's rhetorical methods sound a bit like that of Hitler?
I'm not experiencing the same adverse reaction to the discussion of sexuality that some of you seem to be having. The essence of the book seems to be an exploration of sexual difference, both by reference to where there are biological differences and where there are not, and what does each alternative have to contribute to the other.I don't think feminism now expects no regard to be had to sexual difference. There are levels of relationship, like levels of geography. We live in the universe, then our galaxy, then our solar system, etc. The starting point is that we are all part of humanity, which should be the prevailing response. Conversation can start with that. In appropriate circumstances, perhaps style or non-sexual appearance can be discussed. Within a more intimate relationship, sexual issues. But the movement from one level to another needs to be consensual, implicitly or explicitly. A mini-skirt doesn't automatically warrant a wolf-whistle from a stranger.
Within these constraints, gender and sexuality are still part of the range of reactions. Vive la difference! But at the right level or in the right context.
Of course males and females are physically different as far as our procreative potential and abilities are concerned. However, what I (and hopefuly others) have been talking about, is that the world is currently still viewed from the viewpoint that the male is the "deafult" for human. Hence, humanity is still, by many, referred to as "man" or "the race of men".The males in the discussion don't seem to see this, and feel comfortable with the "male as reference point for humanity" stance, because of the very fact that they are male, and they are also used to it, bec. this has been the viewpoint that books have been written from for centuries. That males are the humans, and women are the 'other'; that women are 'objects' who don't count, who don't have any moral standing in this world.
I think Le Guin would really have written a radical book worthy of feminism, if she had referred to the Getheneians in either the female gender or used the neutral position, for instance saying 'they' instead of 'he'; 'their' instead of 'his' and so forth.
Or how about turning things around, and calling humanity "woman" instead of "man", just to give the menfolk a taste of what we other half of homo sapiens have to swallow all the time?
Thinking about mini skirts and wolf whistles is probably a part of the demonstration of how men tend to view women as objects instead of persons who might not enjoy being treated like a piece of meat.
..but that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you start to see that, you as a male, are just starting to see an infinitely small point on the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, finally women now also have the right to own property and to inherit, but still not equality with titles for instance. We are allowed to drive and start our own businesses and do most jobs (in the West), etc, but, even in the Western world, many jobs are still reserved for men, and with many activities there are still glass ceilings and strong cultural prejudice that excludes women from privileged places of power and prerogative.
Think for a moment how you, as a male would feel if suddenly all the presidents of companies and countries were women, and if we were called a race of women, if women were the leaders everywhere, and if only women were chosen as jet fighters and astronauts and engineers and mathematicians, if only women could become doctors and laywers and captains of industry. ..and men had to do cooking and cleaning, and do whatever it takes to keep their wives happy--in fact, if men's lives were worth only inasmuch as they could keep their wife happy. Just imagine that for one moment.
Btw, the myth that males are per se better at maths is pure bunkum. I've done a casual survey at a few schools, and it actually appears to be girls who are stronger in math at early school levels where prejudice is lowest.
I agree with all of that. I was responding to the comments about the human being quote in post #1.I accept that language is a vehicle for communicating the relative value of the sexes from the point of view of males.
Legislation and legal documents even have a deeming provision that says the masculine shall be deemed to include the feminine, so that when you talk primarily about he, you are supposed to tack on she as a passenger.
When I was at Uni, I proposed that we actually make the word or suffix "man" or "male" neutral, and that we add a prefix to it, so that a male could be a he-man or a hemale, while a woman would be a she-man (or woman) or a female.
What I was trying to do was to make the minimum number of changes to the language to achieve the desired result.
This was when "chairperson" came into vogue. To be totally gender free, I thought it should really be "chairperchild", because "son" is masculine ;)
Hahaha, I think I could live with 'person', Ian. But for me, referring to the human race as "men" grates every time. It just feels offensive every time I read it, and I just cannot get used to being excluded like this. It just does not seem fair.It's cool to know that you paid attention to the inherent prejudices in language-- I apreciate that.
I think small changes are easy and possible- "humans" instead of "men" ; "humankind" instead of "mankind" and people instead of men, isn't too hard to do, is it?
Does the "hu" prefix overcome your concern about the root word "man"? I could live with that suggestion.
Ian wrote: "Does the "hu" prefix overcome your concern about the root word "man"? I could live with that suggestion."You are right, man is still the root, but it's still better than nothing. Funnily enough, when humans are in the embryonic stage, the female is the default; male organs develop out of what remains 'underdeveloped' in the female instance, but we start off looking pretty much the same, once the egg is fertilised.
I suppose to make it really fair, man would be default, woman would remain woman, and man would become peman or scroman, or something like that. It seems to me that the "wo" was taken from 'womb'?
Traveller wrote: "Btw, does anyone else think Tibe's rhetorical methods sound a bit like that of Hitler?"Sure - it's the typical rhetoric of dictators everywhere. Tibe's problem is that he wasn't _actually_ a dictator, and it's an argument that appeals more to testosterone than to his listeners.
"I supposed to make it really fair, man would be default, woman would remain woman, and man would become peman or scroman, or something like that. It seems to me that the "wo" was taken from 'womb'?"
Actually, no (I had thought so too, but that's why I bought myself an OED!). It's from "wif" (Old English) which exists in most of the Germanic languages, but the origin before that is given as "unknown".
Derek wrote: "Actually, no (I had thought so too, but that's why I bought myself an OED!). It's from "wif" (Old English) which exists in most of the Germanic languages, but the origin before that is given as "unknown"."Ah. But peman, scroman, etc, sounds so fun! :P
Since husband comes from (or so I believe) husbondi, calling a man a husman seems a bit too close to human? Perhaps then, 'heman' after all? :D
Ah, someone else with an OED. Writing OED knowing everyone else will know what it is. I feel so at home here.
Ruth wrote: "Ah, someone else with an OED. Writing OED knowing everyone else will know what it is. I feel so at home here."It honestly never occurred to me that any group on GoodReads wouldn't recognize OED (to save any potential embarrassment - Oxford English Dictionary). We're literate, after all. Even if all you read is trash, coming to GR to talk about it would put you at the more literate end of trash-readers! [and I have absolutely no intent of defining "trash"]
Re "chairperson" (which sounds clunky to me), a uni society my son is in has a Chairbeing, which I love. (Mind you, it is the sci-fi and fantasy soc.)
Re the OED, in the UK, having a Punic library card often includes free access to the online version. Ask your local library.
Traveller wrote: "Since husband comes from (or so I believe) husbondi, calling a man a husman seems a bit too close to human? Perhaps then, 'heman' after all? :D "Correct - but the "male" part of that would be "bondi". Husband means "master of the house" (literally, "house occupier"), so cognate with "housewife". In any case, still sexist!
Cecily wrote: "Re the OED, in the UK, having a Punic library card often includes free access to the online version. Ask your local library."Or you could just google for free. :)
For instance: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?t...
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husband
Of course, if you're doing an academic essay, the OED would be the more acceptable source, but still. Gift horses and such...
Derek wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Since husband comes from (or so I believe) husbondi, calling a man a husman seems a bit too close to human? Perhaps then, 'heman' after all? :D "Correct - but the "male" part of..."
Bondiman sounds quite cool.
Cecily wrote: "Re "chairperson" (which sounds clunky to me), a uni society my son is in gas a Chairbeing, which I love. (Mind you, it is the sci-fi and fantasy soc.)"
That is the best suggestion I've ever heard. Hilarious.
It also lends itself to dumping the man root and going with hebeing and shebeing.
I'm ok with being a hebeing. Might give some the hebee-jeebies...
I wonder if we could diverge from the gender discussion a bit, and look into the differences between Karhide and Orgoreyn? Even Orgoreyn's mode of shifgrethor seems different.A quick re-iteration of/introduction to shifgrethor:
Related to this androgyny — but really, ambisexuality is a better term since each Gethen has the potential to be either male or female during its mating period — is the concept of shifgrethor, which Genly attempts to define as “prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship, the untranslatable and all-important principle of social authority in Karhide and all civilizations of Gethen” (14). I was at first disposed to this of shifgrethor as ethos, but that’s not quite right at all. Ethos is perhaps consciously crafted within a particular text or is generated by the multiple public faces/appearances of an individual (we can even talk of ethoi), and of course one individual in one situation may be interpreted in several different ethoi by different audiences given their particular backgrounds, assumptions, terministic screens, etc. Shifgrethor is not like that at all. Shifgrethor, Estraven tells Genly, comes from the old word for shadow (266), and given that Gethenian philosophy conceives of light and dark not as opposites but rather as a kind of unity, I think it is safe to assume that a person’s shifgrethor is not separate from him/herself. Furthermore, a person’s shifgrethor cannot be added to or taken away; it can only be insulted or confirmed.
http://speculativerhetoric.wordpress....
More about shifgrethor in later threads, but for now, did anyone notice how it seems pretty different in the two countries? How, beyond the obvious trappings of Karhide seeming to be a feudal monarchy and Orogeyn a sort of utopian communist society, how different their public relations and general ethos seems to be? What do you guys think of this? Le Guin trying to make sort sort of communist apology? Or do you feel it's too early to discuss the latter yet.
Still, lots to discuss about how we gradually experience a shift in our opinion, of things like shifgrethor, and of Estraven, for a start. I like how Le Guin only gradually reveals more about Estraven.
Also, I can't help liking Estraven more than I like Genly Ai... the latter really seems to be a bit of a ... um, well, as mod, I need to remain polite.
All sorts of things differed between the two, but I though shifgrethor was ONLY in Karhide.
Oh, dear, the moderator's moderating :)Sorry, I need to be firmly guided in the right direction. I stray easily.
Not only did I notice how different shifgrethor seemed in the two countries, I read "all-important principle of social authority in ... all civilizations of Gethen” and thought that's not true!. Shifgrethor seems present, but hardly "all-important" in Orgoreyn.
I agree. Ai is a bit of a ... To think you thought Estraven was (iirc) "slimy" at first :-)
Haha, yes, I need to act with moderation when posting here. :) Yes, re Estraven, -- I was wondering how true Ai's impression of him was.
Re shifgrethor-- Cecily, have a look in chapter one - do you have an ebook or a treebook? In any case, I refer you to the passage around page 20 or location 268:
"No doubt this was all a matter of shifgrethor— prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship, the untranslatable and all-important principle of social authority in Karhide and all civilizations of Gethen. And if it was I would not understand it.
Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness, bolding emphasis mine.
I realize that was Le Guin's wording, but it's our less-than-reliable Ai who's speaking & it just didn't seem at all like shifgrethor was terribly important in Orgoreyn.
Thanks, Traveller. I have a tree book, but it's at home (I'm away on holiday until Wednesday and using a phone - hence my brief replies). I'll check properly when I get back.
Derek wrote: "I realize that was Le Guin's wording, but it's our less-than-reliable Ai who's speaking & it just didn't seem at all like shifgrethor was terribly important in Orgoreyn."I'll show you more quotes of how shifgrethor features in Orgoreyn in the next thread. (I'll have to put my quotes there, bc they'd be coming from further chapters than is under discsussion in this particular thread) In fact, it becomes a subject of political discussion with the factions, especially with the religious faction of Orgoreyn.
I apologise also for not posting more here, RL is truly pretty busy atmo.
Sorry I'm so far behind! I'm actually on the next set of chapters, but my comment is more applicable here. I think — though this has likely been mentioned — that it seems like Le Guin is trying to get rid of the idea of the importance gender roles to focus on the story and characters. Like with Ong Tot Oppong, when she writes, “A man wants his virility regarded, a woman her femininity appreciated . . .” he prefaces it by saying, “When the First Mobile is sent,” i.e. when someone from her home planet is sent, rather than meaning men and women in general (i.e. all of us).It’s not only Gender roles, either. It seems as if Le Guin’s trying to break preconceived notions in general, making the alien-ness of Winter even more . . . alien.
Hi Joseph! No, no, there is still plenty of time. remember that these discussions aren't time bound. :) I must say this book is really a very mixed bag for me. I love some of the things she says, but I don't like that way she says all of it.Joseph wrote: " It seems as if Le Guin’s trying to break preconceived notions in general, making the alien-ness of Winter even more . . . alien...."
Yes! I think Le Guin says quite a bit about initial prejudice in the way her characters interact as well. One sort of feels prejudices (through Genly's eyes) either for or against certain people and things, and then, as time wears on, one gets to see a different side that makes you reconsider your initial estimation of the person or situation.
We'll resume our conversation from the previous thread here:
Cecily wrote: "A bit later than this section, he observes "A man wants his virility regarded, a woman wants her femininity appreciated... On Winter... one is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience."
Evidently we don't agree with him on that. .."
I would like us to note that the words: A man wants his virility regarded, a woman wants her femininity appreciated... On Winter... one is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience.""
are not spoken by Genly Ai, but by Ong Tot Oppong, Investigator, of the first Ekumenical landing party on Gethen/ Winter, Cycle 93 E.Y. 1448, who is a woman, which I find quite appalling....