Men Explain Lolita to Me

[Gary]

This is a bit off-topic for the Girlz group, but it is related in the sense that it's about literature, female readership and feminism as they interact in contemporary culture. It's also about what is, possibly, my personal favorite book--and one that I think is most consistently misunderstood, if not completely reinterpreted in ways that are indicative of how necessary the author's theme is to an understanding of the predatory nature of society itself.

Men Explain Lolita to Me
Rebecca Solnit: Art Makes the World, and It Can Break Us

It is a fact universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of an opinion must be in want of a correction. Well, actually, no it isn’t, but who doesn’t love riffing on Jane Austen?

Full article: http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-...

[Brenda]

This is a -totally- cogent article and absolutely helpful for all women who are interested in books.

[Gary]

People react very strangely to her writing, which surprises me. I mean, she extraordinarily even-tempered from what I've read, and quite witty. What's so unsettling? I suppose any sort of challenge to preconceptions is troubling for folks unaccustomed to it, but the over-reaction is what's odd... and, dare I say, unmanly?

[Andrea]

Gary wrote: "People react very strangely to her writing, which surprises me. I mean, she extraordinarily even-tempered from what I've read, and quite witty. What's so unsettling? I suppose any sort of challenge..."

You mean 'manly'.

[Gary]

Nah, I meant "unmanly." In my mind, complaining is very unmanly. It smacks of the juvenile conception of "fairness" by which they really mean little more than "what I want." So, when I hear men complain about their supposed loss of rights or their interpretation that special protections for minorities somehow constitutes a loss for them personally, I'm always struck by how whiny the objection is. There's nothing more unmanly than a strident complaint: "Not fair!"

[Bryn]

Unwomanly. What about, unadult?

[Bryn]

I like this that she says. Of Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles : It could be recuperated as a great feminist novel. There are a lot of male writers, even a long way back, who I think of as humane and empathic toward female as well as male characters: Wordsworth, Hardy, Tolstoy, Trollope, Dickens come to mind.

I strongly feel this. Not but what I do not find this true of Tolstoy past Anna Karenina, so for Russian representation I'd prefer to list Dostoyevsky. Whatever; I'm with her on this. You can argue for Euripides, can't you, from a culture as patriarchal as we've gotten? I argue for Euripides: he experienced women as fully human no matter what his culture told him. It was always possible.

One of my great puzzles (depressions) is that I can read 19th and pre-19th century fiction often enough with less sexism in my face than when I read in the 20th century.

[Bryn]

Good article; glad I read it.

As for Lolita, I was given it to read when still a teenager by a much older man with whom I was in a sexual relationship. However, it was the first sexual relationship I had chosen, and to me then Lolita had more to do with earlier situations where I had less agency. I have not read the book since and can't comment on it as a novel: but that it is novel to approach 'objectively', without identification? Come off it; neither for me at 18 nor the man who gave it to me. It's naive to expect otherwise.

[Gary]

Bryn wrote: "Unwomanly. What about, unadult?"

Fair enough. It is, for the most part, a maturity issue, and not tied in particular to a gender.

However, I'll take a page from Ms. Solnit's playbook, and note that it's the kind of thing that wears particularly badly when put on by white males when they are confronted with ideas that challenge their sense of self, personal authority, their perceived social status, etc. Heaven forbid one should raise any sort of topic related to a gender issue or social construct that doesn't fit into the narrow scope of their self-interest. I've heard "not fair!" from grown men in response to being told they couldn't wear jeans to work, but the women can wear jeans skirts! And claims of being put upon, outcast, downright persecuted right up to and including analogies to Christ. I'm not kidding. I got that one during the Benghazi hearings. Some guy actually compared himself to Jesus in his ability to withstand the torments brought upon him by Hillary Clinton (who was, it seems, a Roman centurion in his little fantasy analogy/martyrdom.)

[Andrea]

Gary wrote: "Nah, I meant "unmanly." In my mind, complaining is very unmanly. It smacks of the juvenile conception of "fairness" by which they really mean little more than "what I want." So, when I hear men com..."

I was joking, dude. The tone of the article suggests that complaining is a trait of straight white males; thus my little joke.

[Gary]

Andrea wrote: "I was joking, dude. The tone of the article suggests that complaining is a trait of straight white males; thus my little joke."

Hokay. Sorry to be slow on the uptake.

[Bryn]

I was over-serious perhaps, but to me, whenever a good quality is 'manly', women are excluded from it. Unmanly to complain = manly not to. However, I see you're trying to pin down a response by men in particular, Gary. I'd still say, why ask them to live up a quality tied to their gender?

[Gary]

Bryn wrote: "I'd still say, why ask them to live up a quality tied to their gender?"

Probably because of the oxymoronic quality of it, and how strangely unaware it is. Some folks (men in this case) are so insecure in their positions of social advantage that they object to any sort of effort to establish equality in a way that proves their own personal failure to live up to the standard they assume.

Let's say, for example, that the John Wayne stereotype of masculinity were legit. Life isn't fair. A man takes it and keeps on going, etc. Leadership. Grit. All that cowboy goodness. If those things existed in real life (and they occasionally do) then the reality is that such a person actually merits a special place in society, not by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, but by merit. He earns it. His behavior is worthy of admiration, respect, even deference.

But let's take John Wayne and have him complain about hypocrisy in Feminist journalism related to the gaming community when it comes to the portrayal of sexist stereotypes in the latest X-box release. Aside from the complete lack of intellectual rigor that goes with the arguments of such people, they are also clearly in their imagination John Wayne--or deserving of that cowboy fantasy's role in society. They're manly men, fighting the good fight... from the computer in their mom's basement after working a part-time IT gig at the local Game Stop.

The complaint gives the lie to the standard itself. It indicates clearly that not only are such complainers making a sophist argument, they are themselves of little or no character. They are not deserving of anything but disdain. Again, not because of the circumstances of their birth, but because they've earned it.

[Bryn]

Yeah I know 'manly' works on old-fashioned men... that's probs why I never liked it. But I am averse to these words; that's my brand of gender-abolition; other people's differ.

[Amber]

Gary wrote: "This is a bit off-topic for the Girlz group, but it is related in the sense that it's about literature, female readership and feminism as they interact in contemporary culture. It's also about what..."

Someone who hates Austen?

If you're talking about Lolita, what's unsettling is the fact she's ONLY A 12 YEAR OLD! CREEPY!

[Gary]

If the "Lolita" article was a bit off given the theme of this book club than this one is even further off. It's really only related in that it's by the same writer, and it makes as much sense given the culture in which we live. But it's been going the rounds today, so here it is anyway:

I have often run across men (and rarely, but not never, women) who have become so powerful in their lives that there is no one to tell them when they are cruel, wrong, foolish, absurd, repugnant. In the end there is no one else in their world, because when you are not willing to hear how others feel, what others need, when you do not care, you are not willing to acknowledge others’ existence. That’s how it’s lonely at the top. It is as if these petty tyrants live in a world without honest mirrors, without others, without gravity, and they are buffered from the consequences of their failures.

Full article: http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-...