Sexism/racism etc in older fiction

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by sjfan

(And it's Steinem).

Thanks for the spelling correction sjfan! I knew that didn't look right.

In regard to your Rush Limbaugh point, there were liberals before Limbaugh came along. But the word "sexist" was coined by Steinem and her friends to be a criticism or insult, right? That is the point of the original post here, right? Otherwise, why would the OP be upset with sexism found in older literature?

[hildea]

I don't know the origin of the word "sexism", but the concept existed long before Steinem, and people have been upset about it for a long time.

Even Jane Austen wrote about sexism in books:

Originally Posted by Jane Austen's Persuasion

"[...] I do not think I ever opened a book in my life which had not something to say upon woman’s inconstancy. Songs and proverbs, all talk of woman’s fickleness. But perhaps you will say, these were all written by men.”
“Perhaps I shall.—Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove any thing.”

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Thanks for the spelling correction sjfan! I knew that didn't look right.

In regard to your Rush Limbaugh point, there were liberals before Limbaugh came along. But the word "sexist" was coined by Steinem and her friends to be a criticism or insult, right?

I’m not sure what distinction you’re drawing here—there was sexism long before the word was coined. The word “racism” isn't attested until 1903 (according to the OED), and it certainly didn’t come into widespread use until the 1930s. But it’d be pretty laughable to argue that there wasn’t racism in the world until then, and discussing the role of racism in culture, society, and books from earlier is both reasonable and common.

But, no, it wasn't coined by Steinem or her friends. It was certainly meant as a criticism, though not necessarily as an insult per se; the early uses were fairly nuanced.

Professor Pauline Leet first used the word in a speech in 1965: ‘When you argue that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist—I might call you in this case a “sexist”…both of them are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant.’

The speech was transcribed and circulated somewhat widely in college and activist circles at the time.

Caroline Bird further popularized it in her 1968 book Born Female (the first time it appears in print, unless you count Xeroxes and mimeographs of Leet's speech): “There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Women are sexists as often as men.”

Steinem didn't become involved in the feminist movement until several years after Leet had coined the word, and a year or two after Bird's book had popularized it.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by barryem

I remember learning about cultural relativism in a sociology course in college; the idea that we should judge a culture on it's own terms and not on our own. I think that's exactly what we should do in the case of old novels. I like historical novels and one of the things I want from them is that they be true to their times.

Mark Twain made liberal use of the N word in his novels. And I just pretended not to type it and instead typed "the N word". Does that make Mark Twain a racist or does it make me a wimp and a coward? Actually there's good reason to think Mark Twain wasn't much of a racist so where does that leave me?

A writer naturally includes the attitudes of their time and by reading their books we learn something about their time and it's pretty good practice at being open minded and that's a good thing.

If we blind ourselves to the world that used to be then we're cutting off a major source of understanding of the world today. And who are we to say we're better now than they were then? Watch the news before you answer that.

Barry

I agree that novels of the past weren't written in a vacuum. Their author's were men and women of their time. I also don't think that we really have more or less sexism or racism today than there was back then. I think it's more a matter of being more aware of it is all. Back 100 yrs ago it was normal for there to be seperate water fountains, restrooms, etc. depending on if a person was white or black for example. Today we find the idea to be wrong, but back then it was the norm. Caucasian people probably often didn't
think about it and black people had to put up with it. It's just the way the world was back then. Likewise women normally worked within the home and it was a scandal if a woman did make her own way in the world. Attitudes changed.

[pdurrant]

Moderator Notice

Discussion of sexism and racism in older fiction or even modern fiction is fine. But do try to avoid moving to a discussion of contemporary sexism and racism in real life, which is a topic best discussed in the Politics and Religion forum.

Thank you.

[gmw]

Older books are expected to have certain prejudices built-in, if they don't they feel wrong ... although this can beg the question of whether we are imposing our own expectations, rather than what actually existed. After all, what do we actually know except what we've read, and what we've read always passes through our own prejudices. It can become convoluted and confusing, which is where we come to rely on those that have made more detailed studies of the times and texts in question.

But you don't have to go back 100 years or more to find prejudice. In that discussion about Dorothy Sayers' "Whose Body?", I brought up my reaction to Clive Cussler's "The Mediterranean Caper" - and the fact is that pretty much all of his books are obviously sexist (I can't really speak to the co-written books). What I find curious is that I did not notice this so much back when I first read them, but it really stands out now - and since the books haven't changed, obviously I have.

And this, I think, is largely the point. We are a constantly changing society, and it can be very interesting to read texts (both older and no so old) to see just how much we are changing - as a society and in ourselves. It can also be an education: find "classics" (not necessarily older) and read them, and then read deconstructions or review notes for these books and see how much you missed.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by crich70

I Back 100 yrs ago it was normal for there to be seperate water fountains, restrooms, etc. depending on if a person was white or black for example. Today we find the idea to be wrong, but back then it was the norm. Caucasian people probably often didn't
think about it and black people had to put up with it. It's just the way the world was back then. Likewise women normally worked within the home and it was a scandal if a woman did make her own way in the world. Attitudes changed.

Today "we" find the idea to be wrong - most of us anyway. But that doesn't mean that everyone found the idea to be right and "just the way things are" 100 years ago. Racism and sexism has existed for a very long time, but so has resistance to it. The civil rights and feminist movements didn't spring from a void in the mid twentieth century.

I expect to find at least some characters behaving in an authentically racist and sexist way in books written long ago (as I expect to find them, at least some of the time, in modern realistic fiction) - but when an author makes their own vicious racism or sexism clear in their writing, I definitely find it offputting.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by meeera

Today "we" find the idea to be wrong - most of us anyway. But that doesn't mean that everyone found the idea to be right and "just the way things are" 100 years ago. Racism and sexism has existed for a very long time, but so has resistance to it. The civil rights and feminist movements didn't spring from a void in the mid twentieth century.

I expect to find at least some characters behaving in an authentically racist and sexist way in books written long ago (as I expect to find them, at least some of the time, in modern realistic fiction) - but when an author makes their own vicious racism or sexism clear in their writing, I definitely find it offputting.

I didn't mean that they did, just that those who didn't support such were often not in a position to change things. Either those who did had more power or more numbers most likely. And there was the power of propaganda as well. The case of the American Indian back then is an example. They were often considered savages because of what they did to european settlers, but the news accounts probably downplayed how the U.S. Army and at least some settlers committed just as violent acts against the indians. The victor writes the history book. History is replete with one side of a conflict making the other side look bad so that they had to be kept down or wiped out. Fiction just reflects that dynamic I think. As I said in an earlier post no one writes in a vacuum. Each author is influenced by his/her world around them in some way or other. Look at how some groups were portrayed by Dickens for example.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Thanks for the spelling correction sjfan! I knew that didn't look right.

In regard to your Rush Limbaugh point, there were liberals before Limbaugh came along. But the word "sexist" was coined by Steinem and her friends to be a criticism or insult, right? That is the point of the original post here, right? Otherwise, why would the OP be upset with sexism found in older literature?

I'm pretty sure something has to exist before you can describe it with a new word. And that new word has to ring true to a culture before it can be adopted. The truth is, when that word was coined, it struck a chord with our culture to the point where even "sexists" use the word!

In that regard, seeing "Sexism" or "Racism" in older works is valid from the point of view of a modern reader. But that is the the problem of reading older works. You can't separate the author's culture from the author.

Words are invented all the time by individuals for a variety of reasons, but I think they move into common use only if they provide value in describing the world to people. "Sexism", and its variants meet that criteria, I think.

[DiapDealer]

There is no either/or, here. People are perfectly capable of understanding that "that's just the way it was back then" and being appalled by the sexism/racism encountered in older works of fiction all at the same time (though as others have pointed out - there was no time in history when sexism and/or racism was entirely unopposed by people of conscience).

For myself, it all boils down to how said -ism manifests as to whether or not it will trip me up (or even cause me to abandon a work). Any work of fiction that glorifies it (or attempts to justify it) is right out--I don't care when it was written. Everything else is negotiable (in historical fiction). I have no problem, for instance, with it being used as a mechanism for conflict, or for vilification (depending on how graphic/gratuitous), but if overplayed, I'm liable to give it a pass and move on.

Historical or not, I've better things to do with my time than to read someone's fictional work populated by a cast of characters who represent ONLY the lowest common denominator of the period.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But casual racism and sexism in older novels? It depends. If it's the characters behaving as they would have done given the time period, it would be odd to have them behaving any other way. If, for example, the Dorothy L. Sayers was bowdlerized to remove the anti-semitic remarks of the characters in it, it would be a poorer depiction of the time period.

But if the racism/sexism is authorial, I tend not to continue.

What he said.

In my opinion, what counts is intent. In this case of the doings of the character.
Does he (or she, or whatever) *like* doing things we now (and I'm guessing many back then) think of as horrible?
If so, I might not continue, if the character is poised as the "good guy".
OTOH, if the racism or whatever is merely "background decoration", and the protagonist doesn't revel in it, then it doesn't bother me.

Note 1: Intent is hard to gauge, but in a book it is easier than real life. The author can easily indicate the characters feelings.

Note 2: I'm quite sure that most things we today consider wrong were also considered wrong back then. I have a hard time believing that anyone truly thought that treating people poorly (for whatever reason) is doing them good.
It may have been accepted, to the point of passively ignoring it, though.

Note 2b: of course, there are always exceptions, but IMO, those are lunatics and fanatics.

[ekbell]

I've been reading Swiss Family Robinson to my children and we've learned several valuable things that the author didn't know he was teaching us.

1)we now know how so many species could be wiped out by Europeans- the book is quite the shock to children raised with modern ecological sensibilities

2)just how unfortunate attitudes towards 'savages' could be, fortunately none have been encountered so far

3) the lack of knowledge or concern about ecosystems and animal ranges, the land as described can not exist

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There is no either/or, here. People are perfectly capable of understanding that "that's just the way it was back then" and being appalled by the sexism/racism encountered in older works of fiction all at the same time (though as others have pointed out - there was no time in history when sexism and/or racism was entirely unopposed by people of conscience).

For myself, it all boils down to how said -ism manifests as to whether or not it will trip me up (or even cause me to abandon a work). Any work of fiction that glorifies it (or attempts to justify it) is right out--I don't care when it was written. Everything else is negotiable (in historical fiction). I have no problem, for instance, with it being used as a mechanism for conflict, or for vilification (depending on how graphic/gratuitous), but if overplayed, I'm liable to give it a pass and move on.

Historical or not, I've better things to do with my time than to read someone's fictional work populated by a cast of characters who represent ONLY the lowest common denominator of the period.

I like this.

[MaxLV]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Ditto.

Now I have stopped reading a couple of books where animals were treated cruelly. Of course I know that people historically did much worse things than those described, but I just could not read further. Violence against adult humans in fiction doesn't bother me so much, except in case of children or old people, or especially graphic scenes.

You can find violent scenes far more often in books by contemporary authors, of course.

So would you (have you) continued reading books like say Charles Dickens Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit, Nicholas Nickleby, etc...

One of my favorite authors is Nevil Shute, when reading a lot of his books, his racism, class-ism, and sexism is often a key element of the stories. But this doesn't stop me reading the books at all.

A classic example are the Earths Children series by Jean M. Auel, which are written as though people (women in particular) lived in a 20th century matriarchal/feminist society... That idea (in the stories) is laughable and unprovable that stone age humans had such a 'matriarchal/feminist' social structure.

But that doesn't stop me reading the books in this series, as they were written for a 20th century audience.

To stop reading books because of these thinks is little better than the attitudes such as portrayed in books like Fahrenheit 451, and the rewriting of history as in 1984...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MaxLV

To stop reading books because of these thinks is little better than the attitudes such as portrayed in books like Fahrenheit 451, and the rewriting of history as in 1984...

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say to do so is tons and tons better than those attitudes. No one has suggested such books be burned, banned, or even languish forever unread by all. They're only giving personal opinions on the topic and talking about their own reading habits. There's no need to over-dramatize opinions that differ from your own.

I stop reading a lot of books for a lot of various reasons - trivial or otherwise. It's certainly not censorship to have personal preferences and limits to what fiction you wish to read. Nor to talk about why you dislike some things.