|
Can no one see the irony that is being brought to bear in each of those three quotes? Could the "Dresden is a sexist" brigade consider developing a sense of humour, and then you'd actually maybe understand what is going on there? He's setting himself up as the fall guy for his attitudes, where strong women then challenge him. Harry is his own narrator, after all. And picking on Murphy is a bit dumb since there is always an element of sexual tension there - that not sexism, it's just sex.
It's not a brigade Aubrey, just a discussion.
I'm not sure you even read my post, because I spoke in detail about how Harry is a flawed hero. He is that "fall guy" that you describe.
His old fashioned views are an important part of his character. He is dealing with old magic's and ancient history. His old school views of sex are just as much at odds with the modern world as is his very essence is to technology.
I think this is a conscious choice on the part of Jim Butcher as a writer. It makes for good story.
This is a discussion about a fictional character Aubrey, it's not personal so I'll respectfully ask that you refrain from making digs at my levels of understanding and lack of a sense of humor.
There are many examples of Harry's behavior throughout the series and it's not just this one case of him holding the door open. I do not have the desire or time to dig through all the books to find them. I'll just say that my feeling when reading the books was Harry had some chauvinist/sexist tendencies. If you don't read it that way then I guess we are at an impasse in this discussion.
I get that in the door opening instance of there is a sexual chemistry issue at play but the act of opening the door is not the focus. We get the opportunity to read Harry's thoughts about women. He thinks of them as something "other" but never defines what that other is?
I share Murphy's opinion that Harry is a chauvinist.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it is a fictional character so why are we wasting so much time discussion whether this non-existent person is a sexist? This thread has got intensely boring since we have been droning on for weeks about it. And I will comment on your level of understanding and sense of humour when it seems pertinent, which it does, since your examples displayed a tin ear to what is obviously fictional flirting, or at the very least banter. Your seeming inability to process irony is, there, pertinent.
|
|
And while I of course cannot claim anything more than my personal experience, in my 39 years of life I cannot recall a single woman (or a man, because I also open doors for them, it is just common courtesy to me) who objected to having a door held open for her.
Not every treatment of a human based on their sex is sexism. Some of it is really just harmless, unoffensive social convention. When someone sneezes and I say "bless you", it's not because I wish to actually bless them, it's just a thing you say. Similarly, opening doors for women and such is not a problem, because even though the custom originated in some rather sexist notions, people don't interpret it that way currently so it's harmless.
However, we are privy to Harry's thought process. Unlike you, he did encounter a person who objected to have door opened to her by him - Murphy. Didn't stop him. In many other small moments we witness him thinking and feeling and acting in a way that is a bit more than just "being a gentleman".
While I agree that no one detail alone is condemning, the accumulated weight of all the small things becomes a bit much even midway through the first book, and while the rate of sexism occurrences slows after that, they do just keep on piling up.
|
|
As to Harry's assertions about women being more hateful, more vicious, I see the same thing claimed by female writers/characters, and it is treated as "Girl Power". This seems a bit of a double standard to me.
This thing I always find funny. People keep coming up with men/women are more vicious than men/women. Or, you know, "If women would have been in charge there would be no wars", or any other silly declaration like that. Fact is people are vicious, and mostly men and women just express that differently.
@Muad'Dib
Modern Society wants us to treat everyone exactly equal.
I agree and I touched on this above (quoted below)
His old school views of sex are just as much at odds with the modern world as is his very essence is to technology.
I think this is a conscious choice on the part of Jim Butcher as a writer. It makes for good story.
I believe Jim is well aware of modern society. A Society that Dresden is a bit out of step with. Jim Butcher plays Dresden against the trope of the modern man masterfully.
As to Harry's assertions about women being more hateful, more vicious, I see the same thing claimed by female writers/characters, and it is treated as "Girl Power". This seems a bit of a double standard to me.
I think Harry's world view is colored by his experiences and given his background this passage from the book makes perfect sense. As for other writers and the double standard, well I can't really speak to that other than to say I think a writers responsibility is to the character first.
For instance Daryl on Walking dead is a fascinating character. He's probably a lot racist, has a major bad temper, turns into a raging jerk when he drinks. But damn he's complicated and awesome all the same. One of the few characters I root for on that show.
BTW thanks for the civility Green Dragon, it's appreciated.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere because I was sure I was on the Paizo boards and not Tumblr.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, we are privy to Harry's thought process. Unlike you, he did encounter a person who objected to have door opened to her by him - Murphy. Didn't stop him. In many other small moments we witness him thinking and feeling and acting in a way that is a bit more than just "being a gentleman".
While I agree that no one detail alone is condemning, the accumulated weight of all the small things becomes a bit much even midway through the first book, and while the rate of sexism occurrences slows after that, they do just keep on piling up.
And you know what, I would do it just as Harry does, because opening doors and being polite is who I am. That Murphy is offended by that is more of a reflection of her issues as a person (not a woman) than any "sexism" of Harry.
I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere because I was sure I was on the Paizo boards and not Tumblr.
There's been more and more of that as of late.
I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere because I was sure I was on the Paizo boards and not Tumblr.There's been more and more of that as of late.
Uhhmmm... I am not familiar. Would one care to explain? If not, that's fair, too.
And because there isn't enough book discussion, I like DEMONREACH. Best tree thing ever.
|
|
And you know what, I would do it just as Harry does, because opening doors and being polite is who I am. That Murphy is offended by that is more of a reflection of her issues as a person (not a woman) than any "sexism" of Harry.However, we are privy to Harry's thought process. Unlike you, he did encounter a person who objected to have door opened to her by him - Murphy. Didn't stop him. In many other small moments we witness him thinking and feeling and acting in a way that is a bit more than just "being a gentleman".
While I agree that no one detail alone is condemning, the accumulated weight of all the small things becomes a bit much even midway through the first book, and while the rate of sexism occurrences slows after that, they do just keep on piling up.
And here was I thinking that "being polite" was more about showing respect and being pleasant than about doing any specific thing line opening a door...
But, again, I'm not saying Harry is a sexist because he opens doors for Murphy - that could very well just be part of their relationship. I'm saying he is because of dozens of little things like that that add up.
Uhhmmm... I am not familiar. Would one care to explain? If not, that's fair, too.
Tumblr is a social network where safeguarding the rights of minorities reached a singularity point. Basically, this.
And here was I thinking that "being polite" was more about showing respect and being pleasant than about doing any specific thing line opening a door...
Being polite is just as well about adhering to certain rules of society when the person you are with is someone you don't particularly like. So please don't insinuate that the term has only your particular meaning.
But, again, I'm not saying Harry is a sexist because he opens doors for Murphy - that could very well just be part of their relationship. I'm saying he is because of dozens of little things like that that add up.
For your personal interpretation, perhaps, which pretty obviously at this point is not the same as of a lot of other people. You can't claim that your interpration is somehow universal.
|
|
And here was I thinking that "being polite" was more about showing respect and being pleasant than about doing any specific thing line opening a door...Being polite is just as well about adhering to certain rules of society when the person you are with is someone you don't particularly like. So please don't insinuate that the term has only your particular meaning.
But, again, I'm not saying Harry is a sexist because he opens doors for Murphy - that could very well just be part of their relationship. I'm saying he is because of dozens of little things like that that add up.For your personal interpretation, perhaps, which pretty obviously at this point is not the same as of a lot of other people. You can't claim that your interpration is somehow universal.
Obviously. Nobody can claim a universal interpretation. I think my interpretation is better than the one that claims Harry is not a sexist and I made a case for my point of view. You reject it, which is fine. However, knowing in advance that people might reject even my best arguments for my perspective is no reason not to sound my opinion. That's how discussions work, I believe.
As for the politeness thing - I still don't get how in any sane interpretation of the word "politeness", it includes opening a door to someone (especially a friend) who made it perfectly clear they find that annoying. Sue me, I don't get it. You might have a reason to still insist on opening the door (adhering to social conventions? stubbornness? A shared joke?), but I can't see how politeness could be your reason.
Because it is a social convention which is natural to me. Again, Murphy being upset at people opening doors for her is an issue with her not Harry. She could just as well be upset at people saying "hello" to her, instead of "hail the great Murphy!". It doesn't change that the world in general thinks that opening doors for women (and men, in my case), is a thing which is done pretty automatically.
As for your case about universal interpretation, there are topics where people should make it clear that this is only their interpretation and sexism is one. The topic has the potential to be very destructive if it is levied unjustly and so people should choose their words carefully around it.
|
|
Because it is a social convention which is natural to me. Again, Murphy being upset at people opening doors for her is an issue with her not Harry. She could just as well be upset at people saying "hello" to her, instead of "hail the great Murphy!". It doesn't change that the world in general thinks that opening doors for women (and men, in my case), is a thing which is done pretty automatically.
As for your case about universal interpretation, there are topics where people should make it clear that this is only their interpretation and sexism is one. The topic has the potential to be very destructive if it is levied unjustly and so people should choose their words carefully around it.
First, about the sexism - fair enough, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing you of being a sexist. As in all other non-fact-related discussions, everything I say here I only say as my opinion. My opinions are not random and I always feel there is a justification to how I think of a subject (otherwise I would find something better justified to think about the subject) and I try to convince others of what I think.
As for the door opening - so, yeah, we both agree that insisting to open the door is not being polite, but rather some other argument ("It's her issue, not mine"). That was all I was trying to say.
First, about the sexism - fair enough, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing you of being a sexist. As in all other non-fact-related discussions, everything I say here I only say as my opinion. My opinions are not random and I always feel there is a justification to how I think of a subject (otherwise I would find something better justified to think about the subject) and I try to convince others of what I think.
Fair enough.
As for the door opening - so, yeah, we both agree that insisting to open the door is not being polite, but rather some other argument ("It's her issue, not mine"). That was all I was trying to say.
No, I don't think we agree on this. From my side, the issue is not with Harry being polite, but with Murphy having an abnormal hang-up about people doing things for her. From your side, it seems as if you think that this abnormal behaviour of Murphy is the norm for women and thus Harry is sexist.
|
|
First, about the sexism - fair enough, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing you of being a sexist. As in all other non-fact-related discussions, everything I say here I only say as my opinion. My opinions are not random and I always feel there is a justification to how I think of a subject (otherwise I would find something better justified to think about the subject) and I try to convince others of what I think.Fair enough.
As for the door opening - so, yeah, we both agree that insisting to open the door is not being polite, but rather some other argument ("It's her issue, not mine"). That was all I was trying to say.No, I don't think we agree on this. From my side, the issue is not with Harry being polite, but with Murphy having an abnormal hang-up about people doing things for her. From your side, it seems as if you think that this abnormal behaviour of Murphy is the norm for women and thus Harry is sexist.
Ah, got you. I didn't manage to convey my meaning, apparantly.
I don't think Murphy's issues with having doors opened to her is the norm for women. I think she works in the police, a work environment where a woman has an extra layer of difficulty to be respected, and so she has an issue with people treating her as a woman, because she has to distance herself from that. Most women don't have that, in my experience.
However, I can't count Harry's insistence on opening the door for her as being polite, or a gentleman. There has to be some other reason why even though he respects her, he refuses to respect her wish not to have him open doors for her. That in itself is not a problem and not a proof that he is a sexist - it's just a detail in their relationship.
It does, however, raise a warning flag. one of the reasons he insists on opening door, or even just part of the reason, could be some measure of inherent sexism in his character. As I stated numerous time, the reason I consider him sexist is not one individual thing like the door opening, but rather an accumulated pile of evidence over several books.
to change the topic from whether Dresden isn't or isn't sexist, and since we keep bring up Murphy, has anyone got a bit tired of the "moonlighting, will they won't they" aspect of the relationship? Yeah they have kissed but Butcher seems to love throwing reason after reason for keeping them apart. I feel that whole thing is a horse truly dead and beaten. I would love if the next book just opens with them as a "normal" couple, especially after the dream sequence in the last book.
. . . since we keep bring up Murphy, has anyone got a bit tired of the "moonlighting, will they won't they" aspect of the relationship? . . . .
to change the topic from whether Dresden isn't or isn't sexist, and since we keep bring up Murphy, has anyone got a bit tired of the "moonlighting, will they won't they" aspect of the relationship? Yeah they have kissed but Butcher seems to love throwing reason after reason for keeping them apart. I feel that whole thing is a horse truly dead and beaten. I would love if the next book just opens with them as a "normal" couple, especially after the dream sequence in the last book.
It certainly seems to be moving in that direction. In fact, my urgent question to Jim Butcher is how he is planning to deal with the, let's say, acceleration on multiple critical plot points and relationships during the last four books. He literally had to isolate Harry in different ways from his entire supporting cast at the end of every book to keep those plot points/relationship moments confined to the next book. Since he insists on advancing the timeline one year every book, the position he left Harry in after Skin Game would indicate that a lot of stuff we as readers would like to see on page would have happened off-page.
Ah, got you. I didn't manage to convey my meaning, apparantly.
I don't think Murphy's issues with having doors opened to her is the norm for women. I think she works in the police, a work environment where a woman has an extra layer of difficulty to be respected, and so she has an issue with people treating her as a woman, because she has to distance herself from that. Most women don't have that, in my experience.
However, I can't count Harry's insistence on opening the door for her as being polite, or a gentleman. There has to be some other reason why even though he respects her, he refuses to respect her wish not to have him open doors for her. That in itself is not a problem and not a proof that he is a sexist - it's just a detail in their relationship.
It does, however, raise a warning flag. one of the reasons he insists on opening door, or even just part of the reason, could be some measure of inherent sexism in his character. As I stated numerous time, the reason I...
And I disagree, having read all the books about three times now. Which, unless you have catched up by now to having read all fifteen books at least once, gives me a better perspective on the character, IMO.
@Magnuskn, you are certainly more informed than me. Let me change my statement than: The Harry Dresden of the first 4 books seems like a sexist. Either he changes later in the series or things that he does shad a new light on previous actions, or you and I might just not agree on what is sexism.
Both points are true.
|
|
I've never read a Jim Butcher book, but I figured this is probably the best place to post that he wrote one of the Pep Talks for National Novel Writing Month this year. They just posted it on their website. I read it. It was entertaining.
Here is the link: link to Jim Butcher's Pep Talk.
Thanks for the link Zeugma.
Jim has insane wit. Never pass on the opportunity to hear him speak you will not be disappointed.
Listening to Jim Butcher interviews really is very much fun. Although it gets a bit repetitive after the tenth one, since a lot of questions are asked about every time. No, the Jade Court won't make an appearance in the books, although an envoy of them might. And so on.
|
|
Listening to Jim Butcher interviews really is very much fun. Although it gets a bit repetitive after the tenth one, since a lot of questions are asked about every time. No, the Jade Court won't make an appearance in the books, although an envoy of them might. And so on.
pphht. Try being a George Martin fan.
I just wish people would ask more diverse questions, so that Jim doesn't have to repeat the same thing every second interview. ^^ But I can see your pain, I expect that Martin gets the same thing. Although he is by far less entertaining in the interviews I've seen of him.
|
|
I just wish people would ask more diverse questions, so that Jim doesn't have to repeat the same thing every second interview. ^^ But I can see your pain, I expect that Martin gets the same thing. Although he is by far less entertaining in the interviews I've seen of him.
Well to be fair, most interviews are aimed for the widest crowed they can manage. Still, when it comes to authors like Butcher, who have quite the dedicated, hardcore fanbase, you'd think there's room for some interviews that will benefit them, as well.
Um, there are? I don't know why you'd think otherwise.
|
|
Um, there are? I don't know why you'd think otherwise.
Based solely on what you said in previous comments. I know nothing about interviews with Jim Butcher, but you were reminiscing that you are hearing the same things all the time, so I figured there aren't many interviews that target you (and the group you represent) as their audience. I was expressing sympathy and saying that I would expect there to be SOME, at least, and am surprised there aren't.
Sounds like I'm missing something here.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I think what magnuskn is saying is that the interviews ARE aimed at the dedicated fanbase, but a lot of them have the same questions for him, so you tend to hear similar answers in a lot of the interviews.
Quite exactly that. There are topics where Jim often gets the same question in several interviews and hence he tends to give the same kind of answer.
- How he got to write the Dresden files novels (almost every interview/seminar)
- Will we see the Jade court?
- Tell us the story how your dog saved your son from a bear.
- How he got a publisher for the Dresden files
And other stuff which I don't remember off the cuff.
However, of course there are a lot of unique questions as well, so he gets to answer those, too. Entertaingly. :)
1 and 4 are pretty common questions to ask authors though.
I don't think I would ever think to ask about Jade Court, but I would probably ask about dragons, which I think he also gets a million questions about.
Ah, ok. Seems weird to me that an interview for the dedicated fans would include questions those fans obviously heard the answers for already, so I assumed the inclusion of such questions is meant to make the interview more appealing to a broader crowed.
I am conflating interviews, seminars at conventions, book signings and other public events somewhat. Basically every type of event where fans get to ask questions of Jim.
Chekov's vampires.
That implies that they will appear somewhen in the books. According to Jim, they won't.
While watching Dresden deal with Chinese hopping vampires would be ridiculously funny...yeah I don't see a need for that to feature in a full length novel.
I still would like to see the representative he mentioned, just like there was a member of the Black Court that showed up. Just to get a look at all of them.
Speculation:::
Do you see Thomas vying for control of the white court to help dresden out?
Will the dragon end up being an ally, an enemy, or a marcone(a little of both)?
Butters to be harrased by the white council? (Specifically by those who are not pro-dresden)
What would the White Council have to do with Butters?
Ugh, I've really gotta remember to stay out of this thread until I've had a chance to catch up on the books I've missed. Had no idea about Butters becoming a Knight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, I've really gotta remember to stay out of this thread until I've had a chance to catch up on the books I've missed. Had no idea about Butters becoming a Knight.
Trust me, that did not spoil the best part about that.
Ugh, I've really gotta remember to stay out of this thread until I've had a chance to catch up on the books I've missed. Had no idea about Butters becoming a Knight.
Sorry, I thought half a year would be enough to not have to spoilerize everything about the latest book. :-/ Although, if it is several books, you got no one to blame than yourself. You can't expect people to spoilerize events which happened several books in the past.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not blaming anyone. Spoilers don't really bother me as much as they do many other people, I've gotten used to it since I often can't keep up with things as much as some of my friends with fewer time pressures can. It's more that I was planning on catching up in the next week or two.
So I wasn't complaining that you didn't spoiler tag it, I was saying that I should remember to not hang around threads when I'm about to play catch up. Though I generally make it a habit to spoiler pretty much everything unless it's ingrained into pop culture so much that it's impossible to miss (like a certain Sith Lord being the father of a famous Jedi), but that's just me.