Heinlein old fashioned and sexist?

[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]

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]

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 I read the novel as originally published quite a few years ago, the original (unpublished) ending in Grumbles from the Grave when it came out, and have read both versions since.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.

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]

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

Tamara? Hazel Stone? Poddy?

 

[j d worthington]

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]

<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]

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.

 

[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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Radix]

Reading Heinlein definitely transports me to an earier time...
but I quite enjoy being there~

 

[J Riff]

I think the mistake is in assuming that modern society is any different than Heinlein's era. Sexism etc. is only more succesfully repressed, it hasn't gone anywhere, neither has racism.
How people manage to read the author into his characters is another mystery.
A lot of stuff- Starship Troopers as an ex: was about what would happen if Mcarthy-like militarism were to achieve ascendancy, as still goes on.
Hewing to current societal taboos is very old-fashioned, writing up 'acceptable' female characters, designed to not offend anyone is.... boring.