(no subject)
So I just finished reading Sheri Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and while it's an amazing piece of literature, I'm a bit disturbed.
This isn't the first of Tepper's works I've read. I loved (and still love) The Gate to Women's Country, though in light of Gibbon's Decline and Fall I'm reevaluating my enjoyment of that particular book. I also read Beauty and was somewhat put off by the graphic descriptions of...well, everything, though she certainly made her point that magic is not nice. Tepper has a reaccuring theme in the books I've read of strong women fighting the oppressive heirarchy of men, and never more so than in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.
Now, part of what disturbs me about the book is that some of it is frighteningly accurate. The rise in religious and political fundamentalism, for example, is spot-on, and I can see something like the American Alliance rising up if Phelps and his ilk get their way. Tepper did, however, go a touch overboard on her predictions, particularly of the number of animals extinct and the sheer amount of fundamentalism arising. I feel she especially exaggerated her depiction of the battle of the sexes, so to speak.
See, in Gibbon's Decline and Fall, all men are evil and want to oppress women. All of them. Without exception. Even Hal, who genuinely adores the main character, wants her to stay safe at home where she won't be hurt. There are no men who don't secretly want to rape and hurt women purely because they have a Y chromosone and more testosterone than estrogen.
Excuse me, Ms. Tepper. I can see some men wanting to hurt women. I can even see lots of men wanting to hurt women, given the Western emphasis on original sin and women being subordinate to men in all aspects of life. But every man alive? That's ridiculous. There are men who respect women and treat them as equals. There are men who believe women can do anything they damn well please. There are men who choose to be subordinate in some ways and to command in others. There are even (gasp shock) men who treat women with care and consideration and still believe women can kick ass.
I think it's her automatic assumption that anything with a penis wants to destroy, oppress, rule over or sexually subjugate anything with ovaries that disturbs me the most about this book, and saddens me, really. What experiences must she have had with men to hold such deep-rooted beliefs?
If, of course, she really holds them. But it's such a deeply-rooted theme in her books (men are violent, tend towards sexual crimes, and given the chance, will spring at the opportunity to hurt women) that I can't help but think she does. It frightens me, frankly. I think in all of her books, there were two men who didn't choose to hurt women, and of those two, one was more or less genetically engineered to be more like women, and the other was a crossdresser.
Way to perpetuate stereotypes, Ms. Tepper. I don't think I'll be reading any more of her books.
This isn't the first of Tepper's works I've read. I loved (and still love) The Gate to Women's Country, though in light of Gibbon's Decline and Fall I'm reevaluating my enjoyment of that particular book. I also read Beauty and was somewhat put off by the graphic descriptions of...well, everything, though she certainly made her point that magic is not nice. Tepper has a reaccuring theme in the books I've read of strong women fighting the oppressive heirarchy of men, and never more so than in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.
Now, part of what disturbs me about the book is that some of it is frighteningly accurate. The rise in religious and political fundamentalism, for example, is spot-on, and I can see something like the American Alliance rising up if Phelps and his ilk get their way. Tepper did, however, go a touch overboard on her predictions, particularly of the number of animals extinct and the sheer amount of fundamentalism arising. I feel she especially exaggerated her depiction of the battle of the sexes, so to speak.
See, in Gibbon's Decline and Fall, all men are evil and want to oppress women. All of them. Without exception. Even Hal, who genuinely adores the main character, wants her to stay safe at home where she won't be hurt. There are no men who don't secretly want to rape and hurt women purely because they have a Y chromosone and more testosterone than estrogen.
Excuse me, Ms. Tepper. I can see some men wanting to hurt women. I can even see lots of men wanting to hurt women, given the Western emphasis on original sin and women being subordinate to men in all aspects of life. But every man alive? That's ridiculous. There are men who respect women and treat them as equals. There are men who believe women can do anything they damn well please. There are men who choose to be subordinate in some ways and to command in others. There are even (gasp shock) men who treat women with care and consideration and still believe women can kick ass.
I think it's her automatic assumption that anything with a penis wants to destroy, oppress, rule over or sexually subjugate anything with ovaries that disturbs me the most about this book, and saddens me, really. What experiences must she have had with men to hold such deep-rooted beliefs?
If, of course, she really holds them. But it's such a deeply-rooted theme in her books (men are violent, tend towards sexual crimes, and given the chance, will spring at the opportunity to hurt women) that I can't help but think she does. It frightens me, frankly. I think in all of her books, there were two men who didn't choose to hurt women, and of those two, one was more or less genetically engineered to be more like women, and the other was a crossdresser.
Way to perpetuate stereotypes, Ms. Tepper. I don't think I'll be reading any more of her books.