between the rock and the cold, cold sea

OMG, I just went and saw the Bakker comments to the Foz Meadows article. Actually, I could not even finish the second. Off to wash my eyes w. soap.

From:

It is a pity he keeps talking.

From:

Of course he does - his biological makeup is practically forcing him to!

From:

Male brains have a "keep digging" module?

From:

Male brains, miraculously, seem to be whatever Bakker wants them to be. I'd love for him to apply for a NIH grant with such a proposal.

From:

Schrodinger's brain, I presume.

From:

jennygadget.livejournal.com

Maybe that's what he thought Foz and I meant when were talking about brains being plastic?

From:

The brain is neither alive nor dead! The brain is angry!

From:

You know, the idea that to be a feminist writer you have to write positively for and about women had never occurred to me either -- writing feminism for a feminine/ist audience might be said to be preaching to the choir, and writing about women for women is simply targetting the majority of the reading audience. I have to presume that writing positively about women doesn't mean writing every female character with only positive qualities (or all positive with just one humanising flaw - like most modern stereotypical protagonists) because then you pretty much can't explore any serious themes or questions and the women characters become even more boring (and there are a lot of whiny, mean, unsympathetic, boring female characters in fiction written for women).

I've never aspired to be a Feminist writer but I am becoming disturbed at the way that feminism is being redefined so that I'm not allowed to call myself feminist (or even female, given that I *know* what a tomboy grin looks like -- yeah, been kicked out of the girl's club before).

Actually you can take that as beyond disturbed... I'm getting just a bit irritated. Why do these guys get to define me?

From:

Yeah, well, positing that male brains have a "rape module," saying you write only for men, and then playing "more feminist than thou" strikes me as rather unfeminist, to be honest.

(I don't think anyone's saying you only have to write positively about women, forever and ever? Just that if you write negatively, with lots of sexualised rape and whatnot, it's a little odd to be complaining when people react negatively. But hey, who'm I to talk?)

From:

Okay, you're going to have to explain to me why imagining that there's a biological reason for rape culture strikes you as unfeminist, admittedly I don't spend much time studying feminist culture but I'm fairly sure that the idea 'all men are rapists' has a fairly solid track-record in feminist writing/thought (including a subsequent but unconvincing distancing phase).

I also can't see why writing for men is any different from writing for any other niche market/marketing niche. Thrillers tend to be aimed at a male audience. But then I'm well aware that I'm not writing for the best-seller audience (and there's some evidence that men like my writing more than women do) -- I'm certainly not particularly keen on writing for the predominantly female audience who read Twilight. Is it unfeminist to know to whom your writing style appeals?

Things is, one of the main reasons I write SFF is because I can recontextualise a difficult and emotive subject and then ask questions like 'what if?' -- did you ever read the initial chapters of 'Made'? Thematically it gets involved with war, war crimes, rape and slavery. I know some people believe they already know the all the answers to these kinds of subjects, and that their moral superiority is unquestionable -- but so did a lot of Romans.

(How many books written 'positively' do I have to get published before I can complain when someone makes an irrational personal attack? And for how long do I have to buy into whatever dichotemous definitions of positive and negative are being proposed before I can simply write truthfully? And, in boring repetition, why do these guys get to tell me what/how I should write about women and what audience I should be writing for?)

From:

If I thought that there were biological rather than cultural/situational reasons for rape, I would have to become a caped crusader dedicated to the extermination of the human race. But that's me. I'm mostly finding Bakker's response to criticism (which is to say he is a better feminist than everyone else and anyone who disagrees is stupid, essentially) to be remarkably disrespectful of his audience.

Since as a reviewer, I don't get to complain publically (publically is important; privately is different, among friends) when people make irrational personal attacks, I think writers should let their writing speak for them. People are going to interpret books in different ways and have different reactions. Some of those reactions may well be "Shit!" and screaming. Publically and loudly.

(Foz Meadows isn't talking about Bakker's books, as far as I can tell: she's talking about his opinions as stated in comments on his blog. I've only read the first of Bakker's books, and ten pages of another: they're very much guy books with a weird and skewy approach to sexuality in general.)

I'm not prescribing for anyone, Kat. And I can't answer for anyone else. But when you put your work out into the world, I think it's very much a "You pays your shot and takes your chance," situation.

From:

Ok. So. Thing is, there are as many opinions about what feminism is as there are feminists. The fact that someone who self-identifies as feminist says something that irritates you and with which you disagree does not mean that you are excluded. Please don't go :) I am a feminist and I know what a tomboy grin is and I totally am not committed to only writing positive female characters. In fact, I sometimes (often?) have arguments about this with feminist-id'd writers.

My thing is to just write a lot of female characters. A variety. Very many are deeply flawed. Some are villains. Some are protagonists. Etc. But a lot of genre books and films/shows only have one token woman, and that woman ... many readers and viewers feel that she needs to be perfect. Diversity and variety takes care of this, imho.

I am not going to argue this with Bakker, though.

From:

Sadly the argument being presented above is that certain people get to tell other people they're not feminists, using their personal definition of feminism, a definition which also leaves me out in the cold.

What you're espousing is an inclusive feminism and I like inclusive feminism :) But right at the moment there's a lot of unpleasant comment being made (including the one more or less attempting to erase tomboys as a distinct and distinctive social group) which is making me want to shove certain people up against the wall and show them my tomboy grin :D

From:

I am not arguing with your points, but I wonder if you consider Bakker a feminist? Why yes/no?

From:

I don't know the man. I'm pretty sure I haven't read any of his work. I have no data to work with.

According to some people his books have failed to do what he thought they would -- but that's a subjective opinion (and from unreliable sources who're not in his stated target audience, so I don't even know if it's a general audience failure or just an individual reader one) But even if his books fail, that wouldn't actually mean he isn't a feminist writer -- just an over ambitious or under achieving one. I've heard plenty of grandious claims from writers in the past, some I believe and some I do not... but those are judgement calls, they're not facts. (I know I have serious intent with several of my books/stories -- I know some people who've read my work get that and some people skim on the surface story and don't suspect anything else is going on (and some suspect and get annoyed at me))

His writing not being feminist doesn't mean that he, as a person, is not a feminist. The idea that a reader can always read the secrets of an authors heart in their writing is... not my experience of the majority of readers

And beyond the clear lack of data as to exactly what thoughts are in Mr Bakker's head and how they relate to a particular definition of feminism -- mine doubtless being different from that of ROH or FZ or our hostess -- I am generally uncomfortable about people being forcibly defined by other people. Which is not to say that a person cannot, with a degree of respect, discuss any problem they have with a person's self-identification, but this has not been at any time about reasoned consideration. It has also led to people making a lot of statements about what people can and cannot write which also define me (that's pretty much how it goes when certain kinds of people get to making up the rules they want other people to live by).

You want a yes/no answer -- and anyone who knows me knows I'm not big on those. Some people are exclusionists -- they like the simplest possible boxes -- us or them -- gay or straight -- capitalist or communist -- black or white. They like division because they like to belong to a group and despise or denigrate those belonging to the other group. They get freaked out by the existance of tomboys or bisexuals (and often try to pretend these people don't exist or really truly belong in one of the other groups and are just wrong about themselves)

My answer to is Mr Bakker a feminist is -- maybe yes, maybe no...

My questions to you are -- why does it matter to you whether he is or isn't a feminist ? and why should it matter enough to me for me to have formed an opinion?

From:

My questions to you are -- why does it matter to you whether he is or isn't a feminist?

Bakker interests me only marginally, as friends and people on my friends-list blog about him. I have no intention of reading his books, but I have by now read enough of his actual stated opinions in blog posts and comments to believe I have enough data to form an opinion of my own. (Note that I am not saying that everybody should have formed an opinion from this, only that I have). I have not engaged with him directly, and have no plans to do so. However, the discussions around Bakker interest me.

and why should it matter enough to me for me to have formed an opinion?

We are commenting in an entry about Bakker's feminism or lack thereof; this seems to be the topic proposed by our hostess.

You want a yes/no answer -- and anyone who knows me knows I'm not big on those. Some people are exclusionists -- they like the simplest possible boxes
I wonder if you are implying here that I am exclusionist or want to put people in boxes?

In any case, I really do not have a quarrel with you; you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to mine.

From:

I wasn't clear enough -- why does it matter to *you*? You have formed an opinion -- why have you bothered to form an opinion about a man you do not know and whose works you have no intention of reading? Why does it matter, to you, if he considers himself to be a feminist? Why do you feel the need to ask me my opinion of whether he is a feminist (especially as I had not at any point discussed his feminism but was talking about my own)

And similarly why should it matter to me if Bakker is a feminist or not is my clumsy was of asking why it should matter to me that a person who I do not know, whose work I will probably not read, and who so far as I know has no more influence than any other person who has published an mid-level SFF book if he is a feminist or just calls himself a feminist?

We are commenting in an entry about Bakker's feminism or lack thereof; this seems to be the topic proposed by our hostess.

I think you'll find that I am commenting in an entry of which at least half is not about Bakker at all (except perhaps very indirectly) and which also contains a quote about Bakker not being a feminist because he didn't understand that to be a feminist writer you have to write positively for and about women. I responded to how that definition of feminism was forcing a definition of feminism on Bakker which I would also have difficulty meeting, and that I resented that being done to me.

I wonder if you are implying here that I am exclusionist or want to put people in boxes?

I guess then I should take this statement as implying that I was lying when I identified you as an inclusive feminist? That I am not responding honestly to your comments but in some way maligning you, a total stranger who I smilied at! Me, I thought I was making the point that dichotemous questions are often used for less than wholesome purposes, and that that is why I'm not overly fond of 'simple' yes/no answers for questions like 'are you a feminist?'. If it was meant to be an implication it would have been a very indirect one -- and I have absolutely not reason not to have made it more directly or simply accused you as you just accused me.

It's curious, that when I ask you a direct question about why you think the question 'is bakker a feminist' is important, or should be important (the question was never about him but about your asking it)... you duck an answer, accuse me of an implied insult (well I presume you considered it an insult), annouce you have no quarrel with me and that I am free to have an opinion on something I've stated I don't have an opinion about and that you have a right to your opinion, which I have not at any point questioned (although I do reserve the right to question why certain people feel the need to force their opinions and definitions on others -- including Mr Bakker)

From: