Heinlein old fashioned and sexist?

[thepaladin]

OK, you can throw rocks at me if you want...but is someone really talking about a man born in 1907 who still included in some of his books, female combat troops, homosexuality as the norm, "non traditional families, being old fashioned or sexist?

He simply has staying power. And frankly, the man is far more liberial than I am on a lot of subjects... For his time he exemplified progressive.

[ghost8772]

Well, he did have women in positions of independence, and strength, but he also upped the sexual aspect of it, which likely had people screaming sexist. the strong assertive female would obviously NOT be carousing for sex, this made him old fashioned and sexist. Personally I think that is more of a fantasy side for him, his "perfect" woman. writers of opposite gender seem to tend to write their opposite gender character as their ideal.

the people screaming sexist, ought to partake more of what they're smoking. yep, he has sex in his books, but being purely sexist? not really. holding on to old fashioned values, and my goodness CYNICISM? not to mention writing his stories about possible societies, that granted have nifty things, but leaving out the focus on the technology.

overall hes a great writer, maybe a little light on the actual science of some of his toys (gyros from number of the beast) but he still wove a good yarn.

[thepaladin]

Remember he was writing from the 1950s and 60s poit of view primarily (though he did get up into the 80s, by then he was a different man and so were his books). I just mean his tech/stuff wasn't bad for the time.

Doesn't matter much really though, i agree that a lot of his books were just "good stories". Some I loved some I hated. I read most of his stuff when I was in high school, didn't find it till then (1960s).

[Marlon]

Who's 'screaming sexism'? RAH's Juvies are still some of my fondest memory reads. Since my previous post I went back and reread HSSWT. A good yarn, and yes Peewee was a non-screeching female figure. Her mother leaves a bit to be desired in a 21st century kind of way.

But speaking as the kid I was who enjoyed so many of his stories, Podkayne was real letdown.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Not likely to be the case. Heinlein planned out his work beforehand to (at times) an almost ridiculous degree, from what I understand. Certainly he plotted things out well in advance, so the changeover was quite deliberate with Podkayne, and intended from the start... and not because her brother is "her big brave little brother", but because he has been such a cynical litte twerp throughout, and she was the more sympathetic character... and for the first time he was having to become a little grown-up by facing the one thing which had kept him even marginaly "human" -- having to discover that in himself as a way to hold onto Podkayne (who may or may not recover -- the original intent was that she not make it, and that impact blows a big hole in little brother...

& honestly, this just makes it worse. She wasn't even the protagonist. Just a foil for her little brother which came through pretty loud and clear. What's wrong with wanting to be the hero in the story? You guys all got to be. I didn't get to be. Then he writes a girl just to show how a boy grows up. Horribly disappointing.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Marlon

& honestly, this just makes it worse. She wasn't even the protagonist. Just a foil for her little brother which came through pretty loud and clear. What's wrong with wanting to be the hero in the story? You guys all got to be. I didn't get to be. Then he writes a girl just to show how a boy grows up. Horribly disappointing.

I fear you're missing my point (or perhaps I didn't phrase it explicitly or well enough): In a very real way, they are doppelgängers; two sides of the same coin. Podkayne is the one we focus on, and she is much easier to like, but she lacks any degree of cynicism, necessary to survive within such an environment. Her brother, on the other hand, lacks all the "human" traits she has; he is her "shadow", so to speak, not the substance. When Podkayne dies, he has to learn to become her, in some ways, in order to survive and grow, because otherwise he himself is simply an empty shell, nothing more. Hence his taking care of the infant "fairy" -- something he simply would never have done on his own.

A part of this, too, is tied to themes which Heinlein explores in different ways in several of his books, notably Stranger in a Strange Land, I Will Fear No Evil, and Beyond This Horizon: the idea of the soul or personality taking on different roles in the everlasting game of existence. As in I Will Fear No Evil, when Podkayne dies, she reappears as a part of the one she was closest to in life (albeit, unlike that novel apparently, this is as a part lacking a separate consciousness). At least, that is how it strikes me....

In other words, she most definitely is the protagonist, but (like Victor Frankenstein and his creation) she and her brother are mirror-images of each other; neither one alone is entirely a complete human being; and if it weren't for Poddy's particular strengths, Clark too would not have survived. It is her final act of self-sacrifice (an entirely selfless act, something which he could not even conceive of) which breaks the mold and gives him a chance... but only if he learns to take on those very parts of her which are alien to his normal personality. As it is, the book leaves it somewhat ambiguous whether or not he can, in the end, do so, though there is hope in the very fact that he is stumblingly attempting to understand. In her own way, Podkayne plays the part of the protagonist much like Michael Valentine Smith does in Stranger (where many might argue Jubal is the actual protagonist -- but it is Mike who changes Jubal and once more allows him to join the human race).

[manephelien]

Speaking of Podkayne, which version did you read? The one that was published or his original version, published posthumously in his autobiography Grumbles from the Grave? The endings of the two are very, very different.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

Well, he did have women in positions of independence, and strength, but he also upped the sexual aspect of it, which likely had people screaming sexist. the strong assertive female would obviously NOT be carousing for sex, this made him old fashioned and sexist. Personally I think that is more of a fantasy side for him, his "perfect" woman. writers of opposite gender seem to tend to write their opposite gender character as their ideal.

the people screaming sexist, ought to partake more of what they're smoking. yep, he has sex in his books, but being purely sexist? not really. holding on to old fashioned values, and my goodness CYNICISM? not to mention writing his stories about possible societies, that granted have nifty things, but leaving out the focus on the technology.

overall hes a great writer, maybe a little light on the actual science of some of his toys (gyros from number of the beast) but he still wove a good yarn.

Which books of his have you read ? Some of his are real heavy on science. Rocketship Galileo after i read i felt like i had so much info about how to build rocketship,to use it that even i could make one

The reason i rate him higher than other sf greats is that he can mix science with great story,character,theme political or not.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by manephelien

Speaking of Podkayne, which version did you read? The one that was published or his original version, published posthumously in his autobiography Grumbles from the Grave? The endings of the two are very, very different.

Not 100% certain to which poster this is directed, and as my posts are somewhat ambiguous on that point, I'll answer for myself: both! I read the novel as originally published quite a few years ago, the original (unpublished) ending in Grumbles from the Grave when it came out, and have read both versions since. And yes, they are quite different, and (as with The Puppet Masters) I prefer Heinlein's original -- I think it adds several layers which the publishers' required changes either removed or seriously watered down....

[J'Carlin]

In his later works I might agree that Heinlein is sexist, but the sex he is against is males. Even in some of his early juveniles, Star Beast for example the male characters are almost cartoons, as the females carry the weight of the story almost by themselves. The fact that Lummox is a queen rather than a king may be one of the reasons this story is sadly neglected.

In any event if someone near Silicon Valley in early May would like to debate the issue I am trying to put together a discussion group for a charity event. (A Heinlein Society Blood Drive)

[Marlon]

Pardon, didn't mean to respond and run, but I lost track of this thread -- however, the time also gave me a chance to reread a few books so now have reread HSSWT, Starman Jones, Tunnel in the Sky.

Originally Posted by manephelien

Speaking of Podkayne, which version did you read? The one that was published or his original version, published posthumously in his autobiography Grumbles from the Grave? The endings of the two are very, very different.

1982 Berkeley SF edition -- illness. The endings are different but anything else?

JD, I did get some of what you were saying, but I still think it reinforces my feelings about the book not being about her -- just another way to talk about a boy. My copy looks like one of the juvies not the more philosophical works, and even goes so far to name Podkayne something like the greatest heroine of SF. So it wasn't necessarily marketed for the story that you are describing. I will say I didn't think I'd ever reread it but your second post has made me think I might put it back on the TBR pile. Maybe.

After having a chance to reread a few others, (and The Roads Must Roll a year or two ago) I guess I would describe Heinlein's women as pretty standard fifties female fodder. Yes, there are individual girls who are part of the adventure and major characters. But take Tunnel as I think it gives some pretty good examples that people might use to put forth the idea that he was non-sexist -- girls are taking the course and exam, but they aren't really in any kind of leadership roles, and in fact pretty much defer to Rod/guys even when they're doing a better job of surviving (Jack). Carmen and Bob are described as going to be outland doctors, but only Bob does medicine and Carmen has a baby. Caroline is kind of in the leadership structure, but she doesn't marry and then takes care of the kids. Helen, Rod's sister, is in an all women's military structure. But what she really wants is to marry, and when she does she gives up her military career. This and SJ really kind of struck me of stories of the American frontier. Women certainly took part, pitched in, worked hard, but they weren't leaders and their roles were pretty much defined by their sex.

So I guess I'd say RAH was just a product of his time. Which was sexist. He wasn't outrageously sexist. But when people bring forward an example and say look how forward non-sexist this is because of this one female character who kind of lives outside the norm, I see them as framed with some pretty basic sexism. In other words, I consider my RAH books as a strong core component for my book collection and would recommend them as great stories. But if someone is going to hold him up as some sort of hallmark of pro-female writing, I'm going to have to disagree.

Guess The Star Beast will be my next read.

[manephelien]

I'd agree with Marlon. Certainly Heinlein's women aren't passive wallflowers just waiting to be rescued by the heroes, but are they true female role models? I doubt it. One thing that always bugs me with his stories is that no matter how accomplished a woman is in other ways, her beauty's always her most important attribute. Now, I haven't read everything Heinlein's ever written, but I certainly can't remember a single heroine who wasn't mentioned as being beautiful or stunning. (Of course, at least one male's defined the same way, Galahad.)

[pyan]

Originally Posted by manephelien

I certainly can't remember a single heroine who wasn't mentioned as being beautiful or stunning.

Tamara? Hazel Stone? Poddy?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by pyan

Tamara? Hazel Stone? Poddy?

I think I'd add Pee Wee to that list...

I believe it's been linked to before, but if not, I'd suggest a look at this:

Rah, Rah, RAH! by Spider Robinson

especially the list in I. Personal Lapses, Section (2) "Heinlein is a male chauvinist."; while the response to many of the comments listed above may also be found in "II. Literary Lapses, Section (2) "Heinlein can't create believable women characters."

There's also a discussion of Heinlein's female characters elsewhere, notably the discussion on The Puppet Masters here, which, irrc, goes into this as well....

I don't agree with various of Heinlein's views, and I do think some of his women are a bit overprone to have babies to be realistic presentation of a wide range of women, but that by no means makes them less strong female protagonists and/or role models. Heinlein was very pro-survival; he saw that aspect of being female and fertile as a very positive asset to the human race, aiding in that goal; and the women who made such choices by no means hung up there other abilities at the door, as can be shown by multiple examples throughout his fiction.

All of the Stone women, for instance, are exceptionally intelligent, vigorous, and self-reliant, but they have no problems with "getting along" with their male counterparts and realizing their sometimes fragile egos. In the end, they are often more strong, competent, and level-headed than the males in the family, and can see further as well. This is true of many of Heinlein's female characters. To disagree with their choice in having progeny is to say that making the choice to have children rather than follow an outside career makes that woman less of a strong character, which is utter nonsense. Child-rearing is one of, if not the, most difficult, exacting, trying, tiring, and fulfilling tasks there can be, and it requires all one's skills, determination, energy, and flexibility to do it well. Such hardly sounds like a "weak" female (or male, for the matter of that) character.

Carmen and Bob are described as going to be outland doctors, but only Bob does medicine and Carmen has a baby. Caroline is kind of in the leadership structure, but she doesn't marry and then takes care of the kids. Helen, Rod's sister, is in an all women's military structure. But what she really wants is to marry, and when she does she gives up her military career. This and SJ really kind of struck me of stories of the American frontier. Women certainly took part, pitched in, worked hard, but they weren't leaders and their roles were pretty much defined by their sex.

Granted (at least, to some degree); but what you're dealing with here are pioneering stories, and the only way pioneers in an hostile environment survive to create a workable culture is by parcelling out such roles to most in the beginning. These, again, are women who make the sort of choice strong pioneer women have made throughout history; but in no way do they reject their other talents or leave them behind, save in the formal social sphere. When conditions change, they can once again pick up and utilize those talents for the good of their society, because they haven't been abandoned; they've simply not been followed as a socially recognized career.

Are various of Heinlein's female characters "unbelievable"? Yes; undoubtedly. But the same can be said for the majority of his male characters as well. Heinlein understood the value of types (not stereotypes) within modern myth as role models; this is evident from his mention, for instance, of Carlyle in The Man Who Sold the Moon -- though he also has Strong comment that he doesn't agree, there is enough there for him to understand Dixon's point immediately. Thus his characters aren't "realistic" in the usual twentieth-century literary sense, but are often well-rounded, both the women and the men....

[Marlon]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

<ssnip>
..These, again, are women who make the sort of choice strong pioneer women have made throughout history; but in no way do they reject their other talents or leave them behind, save in the formal social sphere. When conditions change, they can once again pick up and utilize those talents for the good of their society, because they haven't been abandoned; they've simply not been followed as a socially recognized career.

I agree they make the choice of strong pioneer women up to and including having children which I agree is hard work. But I don't agree that they don't reject their other talents, because I just don't see that they have any other talents. There are no talents to pick back up. It's the socialite passenger women in Starman Jones who become frontiers women, then return to ..what .... passengering? In an emergency Carmen grabs the medical kit ... and brings it to Bob. No matter how pregnant if she were a doctor too, I think she'd be getting ready to cut when the blood is flowing.

Are various of Heinlein's female characters "unbelievable"? Yes; undoubtedly. But the same can be said for the majority of his male characters as well.

The interesting thing about this is, I find his female characters in the books I've reread, largely very believable. Just most of them are not very ... anything other than defined by typical roles.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by Connavar

Which books of his have you read ? Some of his are real heavy on science. Rocketship Galileo after i read i felt like i had so much info about how to build rocketship,to use it that even i could make one

The reason i rate him higher than other sf greats is that he can mix science with great story,character,theme political or not.

Number of the beast had him making the n-space generator as being a set of gyros that were pushed at three different axes at once, on the precedent that if you apply a force to a spinning gyro it will react by moving in a direction 90 degrees to the force applied. so when they applied a force to a gyro on all three planes at once, it >>>PLINK<<< disappeared. in this world those gyros would have heated up and stopped. that's the only one I can think of offhand.