Political Correctness in Fantasy

[Ghost]

Would you mind explaining what exactly this is supposed to mean?

After a bit of liberal interpretation, I believe I figured it out. He's saying that "common sense" depends on your perspective and saying someone doesn't have common sense is like admitting ignorance about that person. When someone says the Pope lacks common sense, they're being ignorant about the Pope. ascanius thinks those people are idiots and walks away from them.

By saying women lack common sense, he's admitting he knows absolutely nothing about women. On top of that, ascanius expects people will think he's an idiot and walk away. There are more women than there are Popes. I think we should take that into consideration.

Like I said, it was a liberal interpretation, so I may be a bit off. I wonder if there's some significance to my and Amanita's reaction to ascanius and the thread's topic. Someone with common sense might possibly find humor in it.

 

[Reaver]

After a bit of liberal interpretation, I believe I figured it out. He's saying that "common sense" depends on your perspective and saying someone doesn't have common sense is like admitting ignorance about that person. When someone says the Pope lacks common sense, they're being ignorant about the Pope. ascanius thinks those people are idiots and walks away from them.

By saying women lack common sense, he's admitting he knows absolutely nothing about women. On top of that, ascanius expects people will think he's an idiot and walk away. There are more women than there are Popes. I think we should take that into consideration.

Like I said, it was a liberal interpretation, so I may be a bit off. I wonder if there's some significance to my and Amanita's reaction to ascanius and the thread's topic. Someone with common sense might possibly find humor in it.

Well said, Ouroboros...you and Amanita are correct of course. It's abundantly clear that dear Ascanius has quite a bit to learn about women. I'm not sure who said it, but I go by the old adage: "Common sense isn't very common."
I for one think that the better half of our species has much more common sense than we men. As always, this is my humble opinion but if anyone's interested, John Updike's essay, "The Disposable Rocket", will back me up on this. :skull:

 

[ascanius]

Would you mind explaining what exactly this is supposed to mean?

After a bit of liberal interpretation, I believe I figured it out. He's saying that "common sense" depends on your perspective and saying someone doesn't have common sense is like admitting ignorance about that person. When someone says the Pope lacks common sense, they're being ignorant about the Pope. ascanius thinks those people are idiots and walks away from them.

By saying women lack common sense, he's admitting he knows absolutely nothing about women. On top of that, ascanius expects people will think he's an idiot and walk away. There are more women than there are Popes. I think we should take that into consideration.

Like I said, it was a liberal interpretation, so I may be a bit off. I wonder if there's some significance to my and Amanita's reaction to ascanius and the thread's topic. Someone with common sense might possibly find humor in it.

Spot on! Actually that is exactly what I meant about everything, everything but this.

By saying women lack common sense, he's admitting he knows absolutely nothing about women. On top of that, ascanius expects people will think he's an idiot and walk away. There are more women than there are Popes. I think we should take that into consideration.

I said. I don't think woman have common sense, but i know that they have their own reasons for doing things that are simply beyond the capacity of my mind. Yes I am saying that I know Nothing about women. What I am really saying is that to me they make no sense, but I acknowledge that they do have logic even if I don't understand it. I don't see why this is a big deal? So what if men and women think differently, who cares? I don't, it creates interesting dynamics, different opinions and other things that this world would be bland without. It means I have something more to learn, a different opinion to explore.

And secondly I never expected anyone to walk away, unless you think I am wrong? That entire post is about understanding, and perception. That slavery at one point was not about racism at all. That religion is dogged on by those who do not understand it. That women are criticized by those who cannot think the same way they do. Understanding, plain and simple. I may not understand women, but I seek to understand. Just because I don't see the sense in something doesn't mean it is not there, or do you disagree?

Anders Ämting asked about writing slavery in a manner that does not portray them as the bad guys. I think yes, though slavery has a negative connotation that will be hard to get rid of. Is it politically correct to ask such a question? Probably. However where would we be now if someone didn't ask is slavery wrong? What act in history has not been done with the belief they were doing what was right? What about now? The trick is understanding both points of view, I don't mean knowing them, that is easy, but understanding them, and then, only then, making a conclusion. Try it, imagine yourself in the shoes of a slave owner, then in the shoes of the slave. Without any of our modern connotations and beliefs.
Let me say this now, I do not think slavery is good, no matter how it is perceived. That being said it can add elements to a book.

There are more women than there are Popes. I think we should take that into consideration.

I may need a little liberal interpretation for that because I don't get where your going with it?

To learn we must first understand that we know nothing.

ps. Ouroboros and Amanita I didn't mean anything offensive by anything I wrote, to you or anyone else. And I am sorry if you took it that way, I can be a bit... coarse at times. I don't opologize for what I wrote only that I had written it poorly so that someone might take offense to it and for that I am sorry.

 

[sashamerideth]

Ascanius... quit while you're behind

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner

 

[Arcturus]

Political correctness seems to be a band-aid for institutional problems within society. While individuals may try to "correct" the ways in which they view others who are different from them, it still does not address the real issue. The real issue is how others are treated in the past and how society cannot break away from these ideals.

For example, women throughout history were treated differently from men for a number of reasons. Many of these reasons were founded on ignorance/politics/science/etc. But now some people are beginning to see the error in their ways and they try to "fix" that by enacting policies that allow for women to have the same opportunities as men. At the same time, most people still hold on to old ideas, whether they are aware of it or not. One example of this is when people say "policeman" instead of "police officer". Excluding women in this case reminds us of when women could not be in the profession, therefore it is "wrong" to use the word man. (For the sake of this conversation, man is not a universal word for humans since it implies male). But when the word "policeman" was/is so ingrained into the public consciousness, it normalizes the fact that only men take on the role of an officer. By saying police officer, it hypothetically allows for people to acknowledge that men and women can have this job. However, most people will still have an image of a man. In this sense, political correctness changes the way we use language, but not how people think.

While I like the idea of political correctness, I don't think people are doing it correctly. Whenever the issue of political correctness comes up, some people try and overcompensate their newfound sensitivity towards others and turn out even more racist/sexist/classist/hetero-normative/etc than before. It also alienates those who do not realize the extent of these issues because there is barely any discussion. Instead people end up having to defend themselves without accomplishing anything.

Much more needs to be done within society than writing a politically correct novel. Adding a homosexual character for the sake of having a rounded out cast doesn't do anything when it comes to stopping homophobia. Portraying a character who happens to be homosexual but also has different interests such as paying for the rent (and other things humans experience) is a start.

 

[Argentum]

Interesting follow-up thought: to present that early on, or toss it in casually three books into the series? I wonder if the latter would annoy people; if they would have already built (white) visuals of the characters in their heads and would be rattled by having their assumptions turned on end.

The latter would annoy people. It really annoys me to have plenty of time to create a mental image of the character and carry said character throughout the story. To have writers suddenly tell me in the middle of the story that the character is not what I pictured (skin color is a detail) throws me off, because now I have to go back and picture that same character with the new difference and imagine him go through the same problems all over again, because the character is entirely new at that point.

It's not just for skin color either. If hair color is not mentioned and I imagine a color, to have it suddenly mentioned later that he's blond or black haired, throws me off as well. And let's face it, skin color is an important detail. Fantasy is usually related to Medieval Europe, so everyone was white. At least, that's the reason why I always picture a white European by default in fantasy stories until someone tells me otherwise. So, even if we're all trained to think of pale Europeans at first, it's kind of cruel to avoid mentioning skin color and then mention it much later.

 

[Jabrosky]

The latter would annoy people. It really annoys me to have plenty of time to create a mental image of the character and carry said character throughout the story. To have writers suddenly tell me in the middle of the story that the character is not what I pictured (skin color is a detail) throws me off, because now I have to go back and picture that same character with the new difference and imagine him go through the same problems all over again, because the character is entirely new at that point.

It's not just for skin color either. If hair color is not mentioned and I imagine a color, to have it suddenly mentioned later that he's blond or black haired, throws me off as well. And let's face it, skin color is an important detail. Fantasy is usually related to Medieval Europe, so everyone was white. At least, that's the reason why I always picture a white European by default in fantasy stories until someone tells me otherwise. So, even if we're all trained to think of pale Europeans at first, it's kind of cruel to avoid mentioning skin color and then mention it much later.

This. I always describe my characters' skin color and other physical characteristics as early as I can for precisley the reasons you mentioned. It can be challenging to figure out how to insert those descriptions without infodumping when introducing them though.

 

[Devor]

For example, women throughout history were treated differently from men for a number of reasons. Many of these reasons were founded on ignorance/politics/science/etc. But now some people are beginning to see the error in their ways and they try to "fix" that by enacting policies that allow for women to have the same opportunities as men.

The only thing is, some of those reasons were also founded in real physical and practical reasons as well. With the example of the police officer, it would have been unrealistic to expect many women to handle or even want such a position throughout much of history. Think about the armor that would have been involved a few hundred years ago, about it's weight, even how expensive it would have been to refit the armor with the normal fluctuations in a woman's shape. Or that a sword sized for a woman would have lacked the reach of a sword sized for a larger individual. Or the difficulties in detaining an armed suspect who was 6 ft 5 in without the equalizing force of a firearm.

There were economic needs for having a person at home as well. Simple things like preparing dinner would have taken hours instead of 30 minutes, and if a mother was already home nursing her child, the leap in connecting a woman and the home life is not hard to make.

Certainly women have been mistreated, and certainly modern tools have realistically opened the door for women to enter every field that I can imagine, at least in places those tools are readily available. But I think it's too easy to condemn history and forget when there were perfectly reasonable reasons for many of the occurrences we now recognize to be needlessly limiting.

That said, as fantasy writers we can choose to enhance or overcome the limitations of the past to create whatever kind of world we want. But I think it's stronger writing if we can at least recognize the reasoning and limitations which we are, in fact, trying to enhance or overcome. It makes more compelling and richer characters and worlds to learn about magical methods of food preservation which ease up the household needs, or else to hear the sexist jerk mention, "You think I have hours to fix dinner? Get to the cooking, woman!" It makes the story more real and the characters more complex to understand that there's often something rational underlying the irrational hate.

 

[Steerpike]

Political correctness is a superficial changing of language. It is an attempt at a sort of "thought police," though it doesn't actually change thoughts or underlying subjective value judgments. That is why PC terminology has to be recycled so frequently - it is just window dressing, and it doesn't take long before the previously-PC term takes on all the connotations of the old term and a new PC word has to be put in its place.

 

[Amanita]

Certainly women have been mistreated, and certainly modern tools have realistically opened the door for women to enter every field that I can imagine, at least in places those tools are readily available. But I think it's too easy to condemn history and forget when there were perfectly reasonable reasons for many of the occurrences we now recognize to be needlessly limiting.

As true as that is, there's still no reason to view women as sub-human beings as has been done in many societies and is been done still in some. At least in my case, this is what I consider wrong, not the fact that men and women did different tasks.

Concerning my reaction to Ascanius' post: I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback by the the claim that all women lack common sense. This might be true for many women and girls from a rich, modern western background (myself not excluded) but I highly doubt it's true about the women who rebuilt the country after war or the ones struggling to feed their families in poorer countries today.
Our definitions of "common sense" might vary though, you never know.

(Edited to clarify and keep on topic.)

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

As true as that is, there's still no reason to view women as sub-human beings as has been done in many societies and is been done still in some. At least in my case, this is what I consider wrong, not the fact that men and women did different tasks.

Concerning my reaction to Ascanius' post: I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback by the the claim that all women lack common sense. This might be true for many women and girls from a rich, modern western background (myself not excluded) but I highly doubt it's true about the women who rebuilt the country after war or the ones struggling to feed their families in poorer countries today.
Our definitions of "common sense" might vary though, you never know.

(Edited to clarify and keep on topic.)

Frankly, the phrase "common sense" should be banned from the language. It's so vague and malleable as to be useless.

In fact, the only thing "common sense" means are "something I take for granted as obvious." Except it has this implication that what I consider common sense is right, and everyone else is wrong. Ugh. I hate that phrase. Pet peeve.

 

[Arcturus]

Devor, I agree that there are many physical differences that would prevent women in the past from doing the same kind of job a man would do. There is no doubt that biology plays a huge role in how people interacted with each other.

And I'm not saying that homemaking isn't an important part of society. In fact, being a stay-at-home parent is one of the most thankless jobs when it comes to economics. Most people would like to believe that any job isn't worth doing unless there is some monetary reward. Obviously this is not the case because somebody needs to take care of the children and not everybody can afford a nanny.

A better example of using science to put down women is the study that women are inferior to men because their brains are smaller. There is also a study that women should not be educated because it would make their ovaries shrink, therefore producing infertility. I honestly want to think of human beings in the past more highly than a bunch of mindless and bigoted creatures. While I can excuse the misunderstanding between brain size and intelligence, I don't think scientists back then were really that stupid enough to believe that if a woman learns how to read, her ovaries will explode. I tend to think that this sort of misinformation was mostly spread around to prevent women from pursuing a job.

Then again, that view is far too humanistic. Today there are still people out there who will admit that they will not vote for a female president in the U.S. because they're afraid she might get too emotional. Some people believe that it is a woman's fault if she is attacked because of x, y and z. Very rarely will people blame the attacker.

On the topic of fantasy writing, I think that people should try and branch out from the obvious issues in society. Sex and race are extremely visible in most genres of writing, mostly because we are preoccupied with these subjects. I honestly want to see something else, mostly because I understand why so-and-so is wrong and I want to read something that takes me a few steps away from reality, not a longwinded diatribe as to why it's horrible.

 

[Devor]

A better example of using science to put down women is the study that women are inferior to men because their brains are smaller.

I didn't mean to pick on you or anything, I was wanting to make the point about practical reasons for the roles men and women have played in society for a while in this thread. The police officer just seemed like a good example of it.

Claims like the one above are just disgusting, and had I seen ascanius' remark about "common sense" first I probably would've commented on it myself. I posted a study elsewhere which remarked that the difference in brain size reflected the difference in body size. Men have more nerves to keep track of.

Bigotry overshadows the useful insights which we can draw about the real differences between men and women. Those differences should be respected because they serve a vital though diminishing role in developing a healthy functioning society. They create a diversity which enhances the human experience.

That's what I believe.

 

[Arcturus]

Oh, no. I don't think you're picking on me at all. After your comment, I realized that I was forgetting the argument of biology, which is important when looking at history. I also wanted to make the point about brain size because it has little correlation with intelligence. Instead, it has to do more with nerves, like you said, and muscle mass. Then again, I can understand why so many people mistake brain size with intelligence, mostly because of cartoon logic. I mean, I thought the same thing as a kid and I'm sure people who do not understand how brains work would come to the same conclusion. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

I didn't catch the comment about common sense, but it seems like people still believe that the opposite gender is comprised of people from outer space (I blame Men are from Mars Women are from Venus). There are more similarities between the genders than there are differences. Any difference between the genders (note: not sex, as in physical traits) is cultural and for the most part, these differences are exaggerated due to people's obsession with gender roles. From birth, children are forced to act in certain ways because of a label they are given. It doesn't matter that nobody knows what kind of personality the child has because, hey, they are either a girl or a boy and apparently, that's all that matters. People then make assumptions of the child as they get older. Is the child aggressive? If the child is male, people will say "boys will be boys". But if the child is female, people will say she is acting out. The same behaviors are interpreted differently on the basis of which set of genitalia the child has and they ignore any other factor that may explain it. When it comes to "common sense", it's all confirmation bias. People will find any evidence to explain a situation because of their own biases, which ignoring all of the situations that prove otherwise.

Like if a woman is angry, people will assume she has PMS. Forget the fact that someone insulted her or any other situation which would make anybody angry. It seems as though nobody has the time to fully analyze why something happens. Instead, they try to explain behaviors instead of figuring out the cause of the behaviors. It's all backwards, really.