Sci-fi authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No it's not. It's to point out that your opinion does not mesh with the opinion of most everyone else. You are an outlier. You're welcome to have your opinion, but you must also realize that it is not in alignment with the majority or people.

And whose opinion here does mesh with the "majority of people"?

That hopefully illustrates one reason why this "majority" assertion is completely fallacious.

-Pie

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Indeed, your long discourse is valid opinion, but mine is not. I get that... com. plete. ly. Way to engage in discourse!

I fear you get very little if that's the response you give.

Why yes, I gave a long discourse. The intent was to illustrate that it's a complex matter, not simply resolved. You may disagree, but if you do, you're expected to say so, and state why. Instead, you assume I claim my opinion is valid and yours is not, and avoid actually responding to what I said.

So let's try this from a different angle. RAH was among other things a huge proponent of personal responsibility, operating under an assumption that we are responsible for our lives, make choices that affect our lives, and must bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

So one of the underlying issues here is culpability.

I live in a major metropolitan area. In fact, it's one of the major metropolitan areas in the world. Like all such areas, it has good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. There are areas in my city where if I choose to walk around in them after dark, I can reasonably expect to be at least beaten and robbed, and possibly killed, if for no other reason than the fact that I will be seen as trespassing on a gang's turf. As a long time resident of my city, I am expected to know that.

So what happens if I do go wandering around in one of those bad neighborhoods and get beaten and robbed? My lack of common sense and poor judgement certainly doesn't excuse those who beat and robbed me, and all will hope they will be arrested, tried, convicted and punished. But I can't expect much real sympathy for my plight, as most others will assume I should have know better than to go there in the first place, and I was paying the price often exacted for stupidity. (And my likely reason for being in an area like that would be buying drugs, which would be another point against me.)

Am I a poor blameless victim, absolved of all fault for my plight, or am I in part responsible for my own difficulties? RAH would say I was, and I would agree with him. I should have known better, and got myself into trouble. I made a bad decision, and must bear the consequences.

Now apply the same reasoning to rape. It's heinous crime, and I have fairly draconian notions about the appropriate way to treat repeat rapists, along the lines of making it impossible for them to do it again by removing the equipment they use to commit it. But does a woman who is raped never bear any responsibility for what happened to her? Like me, she's expected to have some idea of where she is, what circumstances she's in, and how she ought to behave. There will be places she's expected to know better than to go to, and ways she's expected to know better than to act, because if she goes there and acts like that, there will be predators who see a convenient victim, and she will be preyed upon. What happens if she knows those things, and goes there and does that anyway? Is she in part responsible for her predicament? If your answer is "no", I'd love to know why.

Our society does not do a good job of dealing with problems like this. There are still too many cases where getting raped is perceived to be the woman's fault regardless of circumstances, and it's an easy accusation to make if you've never had the misfortune to be in that situation, often through no fault of your own.

But just as that assumption is demonstrably untrue, the reverse assumption - that the woman is never responsible for what happens to her, is equally untrue. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you want to claim that Heinlein's female character overstated her case, and that there were many more circumstances than she might admit to where her view wouldn't apply, I'd agree. If you simply reject the entire statement out of hand, I don't.

I am happy to discuss Heinlein's work, as proof by this thread I obviously have the dissenting opinion. But, really, this whole "opinion" thing is silly. It's merely an attempt to elevate your opinion above someone elses, and it's the poorest form of debate. Let your argument stand on its merits, don't attack the idea that we are expressing opinion.

I'm not quite sure I understand how you expect a discussion like this to proceed. I think the result you might like is for me and others to be swayed by your eloquence, convinced by your argument, and change our own opinions and admit to your superior moral stance and enlightened viewpoint.

Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Speaking personally, I don't see your moral stance as superior, or your view as more enlightened than mine. I have been attempting by example to illustrate how I see the issues. I hardly expect you to agree with me, and indeed, the best I really hope for is to clarify what our respective positions are.

But meanwhile, if you disagree with my argument, refute it. Respond, point by point, to what I said, and state where you believe me to be wrong.

In discussions like this if you don't do so, the usual assumption is that you haven't done so because you can't. And in that case, you're considered to have lost the argument by forfeit.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Wow! I have to inject myself into this once more. If you are suggestion that when a woman dresses in a sexy manner that it is a valid point of view that she is inviting rape, that her attire should play as a defense for a man who rapes her sorry but no way. Wrong today, wrong in Heinlein's time, just wrong.

No, my argument was not that simple. Indeed, my whole point thus far has been that things aren't that simple. It's not just a matter of "dressing sexy". It's a matter of where you are, who you are with, and how you act when you do so.

And the norms differ between cultures. Every culture has standards of what is considered acceptable behavior, and controls intended to promote it and prevent unacceptable behavior. In our culture, in relations between the sexes, the controls are internal. A man is expected to know how to behave and be capable of controlling himself in the presence of an attractive woman. He's expected to know the steps in the mating dance and follow the established protocols when interacting with an attractive woman he like to have sex with.

Now consider the culture in the more conservative Islamic states in the Middle East. The controls there are external. The specified dress for women is the burkha, a head to toe covering, complete with veil. They assume a man can't control himself, and must be given no provocation, which is why that mode of dress for women is prescribed. Of course, if your culture assumes you can't control yourself, you'll never learn how to. Guess what happens if you take a guy from that sort of culture and drop him into our society? There have been some ugly incidents between male exchange students from those areas and women in our society dressed appropriately for our culture but inappropriately for theirs, up to and including full scale rape, because the guy couldn't control himself.

Clothing is a social marker. How we dress and where we do so communicates to other around us who we believe ourselves to be and what we believe ourselves to be doing. Mode of dress is one of the ways we size up people we don't know when we encounter them for the first time.

A woman who dresses in a sexy fashion is almost certainly aware she is doing so, and is doing so deliberately. She's broadcasting a message. She should reasonably expect anywhere from admiring glances to outright propositions from surrounding men, depending upon exactly how sexily she is dressed and where she is when she dresses that way.

But acknowledgement from men may not be the motivation. And so it might be for the sexily dressed girl - not broadcasting "I'm hot!" to passing guys, but instead broadcasting "I'm hotter than you!" to other girls. After you get past survival basics like "I'm alive, I'm healthy, and I have a roof over my head, food on my table, clothes on my back, and expectations things will continue that way.", the next level of concern tends to be status in the community and how you are doing relative to your peers. "I'm hotter than you!" is a "how I'm doing" statement.

I guess I return to my original assessment in large of Heinlein that he had real problems with his views on women and sexual roles in society.

They were fairly common at the time, and in some respects are far more common now. SIaSL is considered among other things to be a major influence in popularizing the notion of polyamory. That's alive and very well in the circles I travel in, and I'd estimate about half the folks I consider friends are in some variety of poly relationship. (I was, many years back, but have been more conventional since. I don't object to it, but it didn't happen to work for me.)
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I fear you get very little if that's the response you give.

Why yes, I gave a long discourse. The intent was to illustrate that it's a complex matter, not simply resolved. You may disagree, but if you do, you're expected to say so, and state why. Instead, you assume I claim my opinion is valid and yours is not, and avoid actually responding to what I said.

Just to clarify...

I was not criticizing you giving a "long discourse" by any means. I actually invite any discourse, and think it's great, short or long. I regret that choice of words, and it created a mis-direction from my real intent...

I was criticizing the continued suggestions that because I gave "opinion" I was somehow invalidated. When, in fact, we are both expressing "opinion" and (dare I say) interpretation. See the question in my previous post about the fallacy of the masses.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Why yes, I gave a long discourse. The intent was to illustrate that it's a complex matter, not simply resolved. You may disagree, but if you do, you're expected to say so, and state why. Instead, you assume I claim my opinion is valid and yours is not, and avoid actually responding to what I said.

Interesting that you are accusing me of exactly what I was saying you were doing!

I will respond to the rest of your post presently.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

So let's try this from a different angle.

Another clarification...

The reason I did not address your argument is because we already talked about this, and I linked to my prior responses. I wanted to address the newer argument of opinion-as-tactic-to-diminish, so that's what I did.

Okay then...

RAH was among other things a huge proponent of personal responsibility, operating under an assumption that we are responsible for our lives, make choices that affect our lives, and must bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

So one of the underlying issues here is culpability.

Okay, so Heinlein is about culpability.

In this case, he makes the woman culpable for her own rape. A man forces himself upon her, against her will, against her protests, sometimes violently... and she is culpable, even fully culpable? Note the statement from Heinlein's character (and as I argue in previous posts, Heinlein himself):

"it's at least partly her own fault."

The wording here, "at least" partly, implies that sometimes it is fully her own fault. Otherwise, why would it be at least partly?

There are three possibilities here based no the wording. In terms of fault, it's either "not at all," "partly," or "fully." If it is "at least" partly, that rules out "not at all" (not at all is less than partly). If it is just partly, then why qualify that with "at least"? I read this as Heinlein suggesting that it sometimes fully the woman's fault.

Admittedly, I may be overanalyzing here, but Heinlein chose this wording, and if it was for a reason, that's what I come up with. And If he is actually saying that, it's fallacious beyond belief.

Still, let's just take it as "partly" ignoring the implication that it may even be fully the woman's fault.

I live in a major metropolitan area. In fact, it's one of the major metropolitan areas in the world. Like all such areas, it has good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. There are areas in my city where if I choose to walk around in them after dark, I can reasonably expect to be at least beaten and robbed, and possibly killed, if for no other reason than the fact that I will be seen as trespassing on a gang's turf. As a long time resident of my city, I am expected to know that.

So what happens if I do go wandering around in one of those bad neighborhoods and get beaten and robbed? My lack of common sense and poor judgement certainly doesn't excuse those who beat and robbed me, and all will hope they will be arrested, tried, convicted and punished. But I can't expect much real sympathy for my plight, as most others will assume I should have know better than to go there in the first place, and I was paying the price often exacted for stupidity. (And my likely reason for being in an area like that would be buying drugs, which would be another point against me.)

Am I a poor blameless victim, absolved of all fault for my plight, or am I in part responsible for my own difficulties? RAH would say I was, and I would agree with him. I should have known better, and got myself into trouble. I made a bad decision, and must bear the consequences.

This is basically the same argument made previously by Ralph Sir Edward.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=69

He applied a scale of percentage to "fault": from 0% to 100%.

Now apply the same reasoning to rape. It's heinous crime, and I have fairly draconian notions about the appropriate way to treat repeat rapists, along the lines of making it impossible for them to do it again by removing the equipment they use to commit it. But does a woman who is raped never bear any responsibility for what happened to her? Like me, she's expected to have some idea of where she is, what circumstances she's in, and how she ought to behave. There will be places she's expected to know better than to go to, and ways she's expected to know better than to act, because if she goes there and acts like that, there will be predators who see a convenient victim, and she will be preyed upon. What happens if she knows those things, and goes there and does that anyway? Is she in part responsible for her predicament? If your answer is "no", I'd love to know why.

I answered Ralph in this manner...

Originally Posted by EatingPie

This is a very easy question to answer.

Nine out of ten times is the quote in question. It is the assertion by Mr. Heinlein. Ninety percent of rapes are at least partly the woman's fault.

[Deleted 4 real rapes for brevity.]

My point. I cannot find it in me to say at all that the girl bears any blame in any of these situations. In at least one case, the guy wanted sex because the girl looked pretty. So we put blame on the girl for being beautiful? Or is she just the 1%?...

To address you, remember the word is fault. So, no the woman is not at fault, nor are you at fault when a crime is committed against you. If you were at fault, in any way, then the criminal could not be prosecuted.

LAWYER: "The victim knew better, he admitted it himself, therefore my client is not culpable for the crimes comitted against the victim. The victim is at fault."

This is a foolish argument, and no court would even hear it. But the reason you are not blamed for a crime against your own person is because you did not invite the crime. It was perpetrated against your will.

Sure, a woman may dress sexy, but that does not mean she invited a man to rape her. In order for there to be any fault, there most be an implicit or explicit invitation. If you can illustrate that occurring in a rape, then okay. But so far you have not done so.

But just as that assumption is demonstrably untrue, the reverse assumption - that the woman is never responsible for what happens to her, is equally untrue. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

This is not the assertion I have made, nor is it the opposite of Heinlein's assertion. People are resonsible for their own actions. The problem is, a rape is not the woman's action because (for one reason) the woman does not know ahead of time she will be raped. If she did, then she would bear some responsibility if she was deliberately provocative to the rapist knowing what the outcome would be -- she'd then be giving an implicit or explicit invitation.

As I said, the rape is not the woman's own action. It is an action perpetrated against her. So how do you take respsibility for an action perpetrated upon you and against your will?

The truth does not "lie somwhere in the middle" because rape is a crime perpetrated against the woman's will.

If you want to claim that Heinlein's female character overstated her case, and that there were many more circumstances than she might admit to where her view wouldn't apply, I'd agree. If you simply reject the entire statement out of hand, I don't.

And we obviously disagree. The character did not "overstate" anything, she (and Heinlien) was 100% wrong in her assertion.

I'm not quite sure I understand how you expect a discussion like this to proceed. I think the result you might like is for me and others to be swayed by your eloquence, convinced by your argument, and change our own opinions and admit to your superior moral stance and enlightened viewpoint.

As I already said, I linked to my previous points, and was addressing only the "new" argument about "opinion."

Also, I have never claimed a "Superior Moral Stance!" I am claiming to disagree with Heinlien, and that his moral pronouncement is 100% wrong. I'm not claiming to be "superior" to anyone, I am claiming that Heinlein is making a terrible, dangerous, and incorrect assertion.

Speaking personally, I don't see your moral stance as superior, or your view as more enlightened than mine. I have been attempting by example to illustrate how I see the issues. I hardly expect you to agree with me, and indeed, the best I really hope for is to clarify what our respective positions are.

Please stop stating that I claimed to be morally superior to you or anyone. That is an abject falsehood.

The rest, I have repeatedly responded to in this post and my previous.

But meanwhile, if you disagree with my argument, refute it. Respond, point by point, to what I said, and state where you believe me to be wrong.

In discussions like this if you don't do so, the usual assumption is that you haven't done so because you can't. And in that case, you're considered to have lost the argument by forfeit.

Nope, it was the other reason you didn't list.

Already had refuted it.

But since you were more specific here than Edward was previously, I did so again.

-Pie

[SameOldStory]

Interesting thread. Glad I missed it.

But back to the OP.

There were only a couple of books that I've thrown away. The first one was A Confederacy of Dunces.

I read it when it first came out and frankly have blocked it's contents from my memory. Normally, if I don't like them, I just give them away.

I went into the book expecting a very great read. By the time I finished it I was mad that I had wasted so much time.

If I were on death row and given the option of reading that book and prolonging my life, I'd throw the book away.

There will be some here that LOVED that book. It takes all kinds, I guess.

[twowheels]

I'm struggling to find it (because I only have a paper copy of the book, and Google books search is very limited for this book), but Frederik Pohl mentions somewhere early in his autobiography ("The Way the Future Was") that Heinlein wrote some fairly discomforting material when they were young (teens IIRC) that was a bit extreme, even for the day.

... wish I could find the exact paragraph ... need the e-book. :-)