Heinlein old fashioned and sexist?

[Heinleinaddict]

I think Heinlein's work just bespeaks a different era with different viewpoints. This isn't to say his writings don't have much to say to modern times.

[Urlik]

I have to stand up and say that RAH was in no way sexist or old fashioned except where species survival is concerned.

I believe that the sexist views espoused by his characters are there to challenge the reader and make them rethink their views on sexism.

as for old fashioned, the safety of women and children should be the first priority in any emergency, especially if they are part of a small group (such as pioneers/colonists).

it is natural for women to want to have babies (we wouldn't be here if they didn't ) and the proof can be seen in a large percentage of women when they see another woman with a baby. I believe the coloquial term is "getting broody" or "clucky". this may sound, and be, sexist, but that doesn't make it untrue.

so, many of RAH's female characters want to have babies and they fulfill this by jumping into bed with men they feel comfortable with and indulge in baby making in the most pleasurable way.

to sum up briefly, when someone reads a RAH story and is offended by an attitude or view that is expressed within that story then RAH got the result he intended when he made the character express it.
he didn't want his reader to agree blindly with everything he wrote but wanted them to question and rethink the views held by the society they live in, dispose of outdated concepts while keeping those that worked and hopefully make the world a place where people can be themselves to the best of their abilities.

[ghost8772]

Of course those concepts are old fashioned and sexist. since the times have changed, people espouse the career first, family maybe later if ever, which practically speaking seldom happens. pushing yourself to enhance and perfect your own abilities and talents to better yourself and the world, again an outmoded concept. currently if you paid the money to the college and got the degree, you get the job, doesn't matter if you have less experience than a high school kid who worked after school. you get the job and can join everyone else with a theory knowledge of the world in sending the place you are now working for into the fires. line your pockets with money on the way and leave the people doing the work with nothing..... as you go off to destroy another business, and in time the entire economy.

Yep they are old fashioned concepts, and most of what he has had to say, up to and including question why to anything and everything you are told (though usually to yourself unless you can whoop the other person), and if the answer you get agrees with your beliefs, go right ahead with it, I personally agree with, after careful consideration, and at the least feeling that his views parallel my own.

The sexist part I think comes from willingness of women to "practice" having sex with someone. Friday and Maureen are prime examples where someone following the social morals would be screaming about adultery, infidelity, and (in Maureen's case) even incest. since RAH did toss sex into most of his adult level books, that would likely have him labeled sexist, in general.

[Urlik]

the willingness of women to "practice" having sex would be sexist if they only did it to please the man, but in every case I can think from RAH, they do it for their own pleasure and it is a happy coincidence that the man can also derive pleasure from it.

in virtually every case, the women of RAH are sexually liberated rather than doe eyed innocents blindly hopping into bed with men because they have been given a bit of attention and/or a pretty/expensive gift.
considering that many of these concepts started to appear in his writing before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, he is ahead of his time rather than old fashioned.

his introduction of reliable contraception giving women the freedom to choose whether sex is for fun or procreation is ahead of its time and as it gives freedom to the woman to choose can't be sexist.

one of his great concepts is the removal of sexual jealousy leading to a variety of family groups where concenting adults of either sex can share in an intense and pleasurable exerience that brings them closer together.

times changing and women putting their careers before becoming mothers is a choice that shouldn't have to be made.

in the UK most women have to work and with the precarious economy where competition in the work place is high, many women do have to make that choice or find that they have fallen behind their colleagues and are overlooked for promotion.
it is a choice that only has to be made in a society where women have to work.
if a woman could keep the same standard of living while staying at home to raise a family that she could when working with no children then I am willing to bet that many would leave the workplace.
even maternity leave, while a step in the right direction, doesn't give women this freedom as it is usually only paid at a percentage of salary rather than full pay and, after a few months, the mother has to leave her new baby (in day care or with a relative) and return to work. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM AND THERE IS NO REAL CHOICE.

[manephelien]

I can't say I agree with you ghost. At least he portrayed women who enjoyed sex because they wanted it, and weren't afraid to express their desires. I'm far too monogamous myself to contemplate living like Jubal Harshaw's harem, or for that matter Lazarus Long's household on Tertius, but I don't see anything sexist in that. I do have a problem with the assumption that the ideal society is a pioneering one and that once you get "civilization" it's only a matter of time before the social fabric breaks down. Some women are undoubtedly happy to be mothers and nothing else, but I'm not one of them. That said, I'm no superwoman either, and will put my family first, and will seek employment with companies who make that possible with flexible working arrangements.

[Urlik]

I don't think he saw a pioneering society as the ideal, just that the ideal is one where people are individuals rather than statistics and have the freedom to express themselves as individuals (so long as this doesn't negatively affect anyone else). pioneering societies almost always fall into this catagory, but it would be fantastic if this social attitude could work in the larger societies we have in the west.

Originally Posted by manephelien

Some women are undoubtedly happy to be mothers and nothing else, but I'm not one of them. That said, I'm no superwoman either, and will put my family first, and will seek employment with companies who make that possible with flexible working arrangements.

I have to ask, if finances weren't an issue and you could have the same standard of living staying at home with your children as you would working, would you still choose to work or would you stay at home and enjoy the time with your children?

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by manephelien

I can't say I agree with you ghost. At least he portrayed women who enjoyed sex because they wanted it, and weren't afraid to express their desires. I'm far too monogamous myself to contemplate living like Jubal Harshaw's harem, or for that matter Lazarus Long's household on Tertius, but I don't see anything sexist in that. I do have a problem with the assumption that the ideal society is a pioneering one and that once you get "civilization" it's only a matter of time before the social fabric breaks down. Some women are undoubtedly happy to be mothers and nothing else, but I'm not one of them. That said, I'm no superwoman either, and will put my family first, and will seek employment with companies who make that possible with flexible working arrangements.

First point, I wasn't describing anyone who has READ and enjoyed Heinlein as one who would describe his works as sexist. I was speculating that the people who label books would call it sexist simply because he sets up and executes situations in his stories that involve sex. Polygamous relationships are BIG red flag in that department.

Heinlein did give the impression that a pioneering society was his ideal. Small town mentalities were where he felt the most comfortable obviously. This isn't to say that he wanted us all to throw away technology and live a pastoral life, Amish he wasn't, more that when you knew the people around you by name, and knew who that person was more intimately than needing to check their ID you were a closer part of the community. His favorite quote on that idea seems to be "Any time a society reached sufficient density to require ID cards, it is doomed." probably paraphrased that one, sorry to any purists. The point being that he seemed to feel that when it reached a point where the government enforced identification so anyone would know who YOU were, then society was breaking down, the first "tell" was that point, liberties were getting shut down, courtesy was going away, all the things he hated about modern times.

Putting family first has been pointedly placed in a number of his stories. care of gravid women and the children has been an underlined, circled, arrows all pointing at it, idea in his stories. Unfortunately corporate mentalities keep trying to negate that desire in their employees. To me its because that's not where the money is, go figure. I'm a dad first, though my ideology includes provider, but the first time an employer asks me if racing off to provide comfort etc.. if my daughter is ever hurt, is worth my job, they will be told a resounding yes, and I'll work on providing for my family at a different location.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

Putting family first has been pointedly placed in a number of his stories. care of gravid women and the children has been an underlined, circled, arrows all pointing at it, idea in his stories.

I'd say that is quite accurate. Heinlein was very much a believer in the importance of the survival (and expansion) of the human race, and the best way to ensure such is to provide and care for -- financially, physically, and emotionally -- the young and those bearing them.