Is it fair to call this book misogynistic?

[David W.]

Apparently the book's portrayal of witches are veiled attacks on women...? I don't understand, Roald Dahl did his d@mnest to explain that these "witches" are really demons who only look like women (except for the tells like the claws and feet). Why do some readers have to be so sensitive?

[Elentarri]

Someone will always find something to complain about. Some people will go out of their way to do the same.

[David W.]

I have this thing where I almost cannot engage in arguements with others ever because I know their viewpoints so well that I can hear their rebuttals in my head ("Oh stop making excuses for him, you can't hide his vile intents so easily", "Don't you call us politically correct! It's called basic decency!" etc.) and in the end they always win. It could be manic-depression or maybe some sort of empathy disorder...but really, some people are really just spoiled. They live in a progressive society but they also might lack the skills to appreciate past books for what they're worth. Many books are flawed but we must try to figure out if the author's doing what he/she can under the historical and social restraints. Hardly fair to ask a historian in a slave society to think about votes for women when even the men don't have democracy. Austen books try to marry off the heroines in one way or another, because that's the way things worked in middle to high class British society! Call them reactionary, call them evil even (a few books like Mein Kampf really deserve that) but don't call them "dated". Do they get you thinking in any fashion? Then it's not really "dated". Don't be so smug about it.

Thank you for your kind words, @Elentarri.

[Somerandom]

Apparently it's due to the line "Not all women are witches. But all witches are women." Which conveniently ignores the line straight after it saying something along the lines of "ghouls are men. Not all men are ghouls but all ghouls are men."

Roald Dahl certainly held some "outdated" views, no doubt some of those concerning women. But the accusations of misogyny in this or any of his other books are rather weak, imo.

[David W.]

I still remember that line all right, but even if the witches were once real women, they're still women who'd sold their souls to Satan and renounced their humanity, right...? (i thought that it meant "witches are female, while wizards/warlocks are male", though)

I don't think I understand your second sentence, though. I thought that the line about ghouls meant that there are also monsters who were once male humans, so doesn't that balance things out?

[David W.]

I also think we need more specific terms than "misogynistic" or "ableist", they're a bit too "blanket" imho and the excessive use sort of cheapens them and the very real discriminations out there.

[Somerandom]

David wrote: "I still remember that line all right, but even if the witches were once real women, they're still women who'd sold their souls to Satan and renounced their humanity, right...? (i thought that it me..."

It's a book written for 6 year olds, mate. I don't think it goes any further than Witches and Ghouls are both bad guys in the universe. But Witches just so happen to be female and Ghouls just so happen to be male.
The people who accuse this book of misogyny are people reading far too into what is a fun, smart but still relatively simple kids book.

[Sarah]

David wrote: "Apparently the book's portrayal of witches are veiled attacks on women...? I don't understand, Roald Dahl did his d@mnest to explain that these "witches" are really demons who only look like women ..."

That's an interesting way of looking at this book- however, I don't think that it is necessarily true. After all, he does clearly explain that although all witches are women, all ghouls are men. That, to me, defeats the "misogynistic" point of view that these people are spouting. Just because the witches look like women doesn't mean that they are women, after all!

Furthermore, I don't see the point of using this attack on a children's novel like this unless it was blatantly there without a doubt. People read into kid's literature WAY too much for their own good, in my opinion.

[David W.]

(For the record: My title was rhetorical, I myself don't think Dahl was being misogynistic at all.)

I keep wondering if the terms like "misogyny" and "ableism" are being used a bit too casually? But on the other hand I haven't been anywhere near a western society for the past 16 years, so I can't have any hands-on experience/observation/discussion. "Hatred towards women by men," that's what my iOS dictionary tells me. But does it mean every kind of degree of hatred and disdain? Whenever I see the term being used (I may have to stay away from tumblr for, like the next hundred years *_*), I keep thinking of the worst degree until the context tells me otherwise.

As for ableism...have any of you read the FAQ for scans_daily? (http://disabledfeminists.com/category...) Apparently certain terms like retard and f@ckwit are offensive in any context whatsoever, because there are real people with mental shortcomings out there, and therefore they would always be insulting? (e.g. Steven Moffat's a piece of [ ] for making Sherlock say he's a "high-functioning sociopath" because sociopath is inter-changeable with psychopath (NOT TRUE) and because Sherlock doesn't fit the descriptions of a real sociopath — never mind his rebuttle is to make the people he dislike squirm and not meant to be accurate — it's an offence to real sociopaths and therefore highly offensive.)

[Somerandom]

David wrote: "Apparently certain terms like retard and f@ckwit are offensive in any context whatsoever, because there are real people with mental shortcomings out there, and therefore they would always be insulting?
"

Well, certainly those specific words are often used in a demeaning way, often to infer that someone is lacking "proper" intellect and brain function. And by extension serve to demonize those with intellectual disabilities as "less worthy" of being human.
However, the word "Retard" is not always offensive in any context, for that is a long held medical term still used by mental health professionals. But then again, to a layman the words used by Scientists in any discipline often sounds harsh due to the differing contexts. For example in everyday speech if I was to call someone "not normal" or a "freak" that would be taken as ostracizing someone socially because of their differences. But if a Scientist uses those terms, they don't really have any negative connotations, they are merely words to illustrate occurrences that are not very frequent.

[David W.]

Thank you for your comment, @Somerandom. (I made some last-minute changes to my post before yours showed up, it may affect your thoughts on me)

I have very mixed feelings to the info in my last comment's link. They claim to be discussing about the words, but in effect the articles are just about how harmful they are. I know that things as "mild" as 'stupid' can be harmfully insulting when used "correctly" ("David is so stupid he'll still be in Grade One when he's 30 years old"), but it begs the question of which of them need to be tempered and which ones are never to be used. It is actually unacceptable that in *such* a clear and narrow field they still refused to make some halfway concrete statement or opinion, opting to ask more questions than they can answer — the articles are 3~5 years old, and none of the comments I see are too recent, yet many of the respectfully worded questions weren't addressed nevermind answered. That's pretty damning to me.

Back to your comment, it's true that almost no insult can be rendered affectionate when used by people who are close enough. e.g. An Orange Is The New Black fanfic I saw on AO3 where Piper adopted a baby son and the boy ending up with two loving mommies (Piper and Alex were girlfriends before prison) is named "You Little Sh*t", a story of Alex gradually warming up to the child. And how many guys had called a buddy "sick bastard"? The examples go on. I really think some people jump too closely to judgements.

[Salam]

NO!!

[[deleted user]]

If this book is anti-women, I'll eat a cat and my hat. What is the grandmother if not a woman?

[Pandora]

A lot of Dahl's work has misogynist and misopedic themes. 'Switch Bitch' is a "funny" story about rape, (vomit) and 'My Uncle Oswald'is repulsive in its portrayal of women as literal sperm containers.

[[deleted user]]

Jayne wrote: "A lot of Dahl's work has misogynist and misopedic themes. 'Switch Bitch' is a "funny" story about rape, (vomit) and 'My Uncle Oswald'is repulsive in its portrayal of women as literal sperm contain..."

Ok, this book you have nothing to say about, just some stuff about Roald Dahl's short stories for a more mature audience.

[Somerandom]

Jayne wrote: "A lot of Dahl's work has misogynist and misopedic themes. 'Switch Bitch' is a "funny" story about rape, (vomit) and 'My Uncle Oswald'is repulsive in its portrayal of women as literal sperm contain..."

You know I always saw My Uncle Oswald as a sort of parody of Arabian Nights (just with the roles sort of reversed.) It's clear that it's all just a joke and most likely a tongue in cheek jab at the then highly controversial In Vitro Fertilization process.
Roald Dahl was a subversive author in his children's stories, I expect nothing less from his adult fare. It's like getting mad at South Park for lapooning people. It's just what they do.
Plus he comes from an era where the prevailing attitudes towards sexuality were......different.
Just because Chaucer wrote dirty things about women doesn't mean he was mysoginist necessarily. Same basic principle.
Besides, you can't take anything you read at just face value. Just because an author writes about certain themes, characters or even points of view, that doesn't necessarily mean they support or condone them.

[David W.]

[blanket statement because of time restriction]
Thanks so much for replying to this little thread I've started, I wasn't expecting so much to show up while I've been away. :)

There are actually entire books being written on the subject about books being censored and attacked, usually for pretty ridiculous reasons: 120 Banned Books: Censorship Histories of World Literature, Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds, Literature Suppressed On Political Grounds, Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds, Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds. Guess if Roald Dahl was on any of those...

[Hannah]

I personally don't feel it's fair to call this book misogynistic because I doubt that Roald Dahl meant to discriminate against women. I think that he just wanted to project the stereotypical image of witches (being all female) because it might be easier for children to picture.

[Chris]

No, I don't think it's fair.
a) The grandmother is such a brilliant and brave woman. A beloved character!
b) "You don't seem to understand that witches are not actually women at all. They look like women. They talk like women. And they are able to act like women. But in actual fact, they are totally different animals. They are demons in human shape..."

[Adam]

However, if you put the witches up with The Trunchball; Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker, Mrs Twit - he did enjoy writing a nasty woman. Though, it's fair to say he liked to write a nasty man as well.

A lot of good children's fiction needs someone who a child can hate and find ridiculous at the same time, Roald Dahl was brilliant at this.

[David W.]

Thanks again for those wonderful responses. I just feel very uncomfortable when I attempt to understand those "social justice" terms, especially stuff like "misogynistic" which is so loosely defined and easily thrown around.

[sam]

David W. wrote: "I still remember that line all right, but even if the witches were once real women, they're still women who'd sold their souls to Satan and renounced their humanity, right...? (i thought that it me..."

No. In this book they aren't even real women at all they are demons pretending to be women, that's why they have claws, bald heads and no toes. In the book the witches were never real women.
Is it really just that line "Not all women are witches. But all witches are women." ?? But then he does say "ghouls are men. Not all men are ghouls but all ghouls are men." I don't see anything misogynistic about this, especially considering what a strong character the grandmother is, so no its really not fair to call this book that.
Yes books written in different time periods will reflect the views of that time, of course. That's half the fun of reading them isn't it? And I'll say it right now that if all books were politically correct I WOULD STOP READING ALLTOGETHER. How boring would that be? Their will always be haters, but that's to be expected. But what I really hate is when people badmouth a book that they've never even read, because really, If you read this book recently you wouldn't call it misogynistic.

[David W.]

sam wrote: "David W. wrote: "I still remember that line all right, but even if the witches were once real women, they're still women who'd sold their souls to Satan and renounced their humanity, right...? (i t..."

Thank you for commenting, sam; I have indeed read this book (and i agree with basically all your points here), i just keep forming opinions that are not my own because of negative saturation from certain corners of Twitter and radical sites such as The Mary Sue (am I the only one here who finds that place ultra-leftist as f@&k?) and I worry if they're true.

[sam]

David W. wrote: "sam wrote: "David W. wrote: "I still remember that line all right, but even if the witches were once real women, they're still women who'd sold their souls to Satan and renounced their humanity, ri..."

Don't form your opinions based solely on what other people think. Yes its good to hear others viewpoints but you must remember not to let that overshadow your own initial feelings about it.
*rereads what I wrote* ...Damn I sound pompous and preachy... Sorry. And besides what I think and what the Mary Sue people think Can both be right, its all about how the material resonates with the reader.

[Chris]

In The BFG, all the child-eating giants are male. So that must mean that Dahl hates men!

[Adam]

Here are some extracts from Roald Dahl's American editor, where they discuss the possible misogynistic elements of The Witches.

I was concerned about the portrayal of women, but Roald wasn’t. “I don’t agree with you about women coming in for a lot of stick all the way through. The nicest person in the whole thing is a woman [the grandmother] so I have not changed anything here.”

And when I suggested that women teachers standing on their desks in response to seeing a mouse was a cliché, he wrote, “This is not a cliché to children, it is a situation they will enjoy. I must keep reminding you that this is a book for children and I don’t give a bugger what grown-ups think about it. This has always been my attitude.”

[Iris]

I think it's fair to call anything anything. The simplistic explanation of everything in this book + the little kids who will read it will equate to: women they don't know are witches. Now the kids could think this in jest or in earnest for five minutes but the thoughts are there, and they will think women, however briefly, are dangerous whereas men are not. (So yeah, sexist)

I also think it is fair to dislike this book without condemning all of the authors work.

[David W.]

Glad to see you joining in the conversation, Iris.

[Iris]

David W. wrote: "Glad to see you joining in the conversation, Iris."

Thanks. Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic, but thanks all the same.

Did my negative review have anything to do with this? I'm just curious. Happy and eager to debate this with you all you want whether that's the case or not.

[sam]

Iris wrote: "I think it's fair to call anything anything. The simplistic explanation of everything in this book + the little kids who will read it will equate to: women they don't know are witches. Now the kids..."

To a kid it shows that some woman 'might' be witches and how to identify them. It doesn't say that all woman are bad(grandma is a prime example here)or that only woman are evil child haters since it does reference ghouls as being only men so ... Anyway, I'll bet that most children suspect at some point that someone they know might be a witch without reading this book (blame pop culture if you must), it's just them thinking like a child.

I don't care if you like this book or not or if you don't appreciate how woman are seen here but I wouldn't call it misogynistic for reasons I said in previous messages. I don't feel like retyping so please read and get back to me. Thank you.

[Iris]

sam wrote: "Iris wrote: "I think it's fair to call anything anything. The simplistic explanation of everything in this book + the little kids who will read it will equate to: women they don't know are witches...."

I didn't call this book misogynistic, I simply said that people have a right to read into it and call it what they will. Children books have a great power in forming how kids think, so it's perfectly acceptable to analyze it.