# Law of noncontradiction and values in speculative fiction...



## Darth Angelus (Nov 13, 2012)

Hi, all!

It has been a while since I posted here. I have been busy. However, I do have one issue about speculative fiction and pop culture in general, or, more to the point, how some people look at it.

Let us just say I have seen and read some feminist criticism about pop culture lately. First note that this is not meant to propagate that standpoint, even though I think there are often points in that criticism. On the other hand, I guess it is possible that people questioning the values in mainstream culture (like feminists) may sometimes be prone to interpret things in the worst possible way. This thread is not really meant to start a discussion about whether feminists are right, exaggerating or completely wrong. Rather, it is about one counterargument I have seen coming from anti-feminists.

Let us say this happens...
- Feminist A argues that the portrayal female character C contains misogyny.
- Anti-feminist B responds "But C is badass. She can hold her own, and is a strong female character and that is the opposite of misogyny."

Yes, I have seen the above argurment, even today.

Well, there is one major problem with B's argument here. They are fallaciously applying the law of noncontradiction where it does not and can not apply.
A piece of fiction, even a specific character in said piece of fiction, can contain contradictions when it comes to views and values. Yes, this is most definitely possible. You can have a "strong female character" who is at the same time sexist (as in anti-female). Generally, characters or other elements in a story have several features, and the more complex they are, the truer this can be.
You can write a half-naked gun toting heroine* fighting in pornographic poses (actually, that has already been done). Nothing that is arguably female empowerment (such as a girl packing heat) precludes misogyny. Nothing that is definitely female empowerment does so, either.

The thing about logical laws like the law of noncontradiction is that they only really work within systems that are strictly logical in their natures (mathemetics, computer programming languages, and the like). As for this law specifically, it can even then only be applied to a single atomic element/entity/aspect within the system, and a fictional character (let alone an entire franchise) is clearly not such a single atomic entity.

This is something that has bothered me for quite a long time. You toss in the slightest female empowerment in a piece of fiction, and suddenly it seems to be nearly immune to criticism about how female characters are portrayed, according to many people.

Note that this doesn't just apply to just to sexism. You could say the same about racism. So let me be clear about a few things.
- Female empowerment and misogyny are not mutually exclusive.
- Male empowerment and misandry are not mutually exclusive.
- Misandry and misogyny are not mutually exclusive.
- Empowerment of a black person and racism (against black people) are not mutually exclusive.
- Empowerment of a white person and racism (against white people) are not mutually exclusive.
- Racism against white people and racism against black people are not mutually exclusive.

And on, and on...

I think these examples illustrate my point. In fact, I don't think there is anything particularly new or remarkable about saying that "contradictions" like this are not only possible, but quite commonplace in pop culture, which is not all that surprising, since a lot of pop culture is made to appeal to as many demographics as possible.
Yet, it seems to me that this basic conclusion is often missed or ignored when people argue about pop culture.

What do you think? Why is it so hard for some people to wrap their heads around seemingly contradictory views and values in pop culture?



* It is a bit...naive (for lack of a better word) to view this as female empowerment. Many times, it seems mire like squezzing stereotypical male action hero into female body. Sometimes, she is a badass normal heroine beside more formidable male heroes (Leia and Padmé in Star Wars).
Yes, I know that some will argue that Princess Leia is awesome, but really, if you compare her to her twin brother Luke, she is most definitely a lesser character and hero than he is. I cannot stress enough that this is not me belittling her because she is a female character. I am just looking at the saga as objectively as I can and how events play out. Luke gets to train to be the overall greatest most potent type of hero in the saga (a Jedi), facing the main villains in the end. Leia is a princess, a diplomat who shoots blasters, a damsel in distress on the Death Star and yes, a half-naked decoration (to the eyes of some male viewers) in Jabba's palace.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 13, 2012)

IMO, the problem is simply that different people have different opinions - and what should be a reasonable middle ground clears up as people polarise the arguments to extremes.

I've been reading a lot on these issues recently, but it's clear that some people either exaggerate their points, or pick easy targets, and then apply them in general sweeps. Understanding the context of the poster as well is also helpful - whether they are a White Supremacist or an Asian Supremacist, the point is that they already have an agenda and are looking to take things out of context in order to satisfy their argument. It's something I see happen a lot in religious debates.

As for the issue of sexism and feminism in general - somewhere in there is the principle of egalitarianism, ie, equality, too easily over-looked by both sides. 

The fact is, there is bad writing out there, bad characterisation out there, and bad gender stereotypes. However, the more people become aware of such issues, then the hope is that such imbalances can be addressed.

I'm especially sensitive of the issue because my WiP has seven male protagonists. I grappled with the idea of making one or more of these female for the sake of addressing the gender imbalance - but this is a character-driven story and changing genders for the sake of political correctness would completely change the character dynamics and introduce a whole new set of sexual dyanmics - all of which would radically change the intention of the story to something quite unwanted. In which case, when I'm published, somebody somewhere is going to highlight it as an example of sexist writing, simply because it serves their narrow interest to do so.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Nov 13, 2012)

I think we are generally on the same page on this.

As I see it, any agenda (even an initially well-intentioned one) runs a certain risk of taking its own particular line of reasoning to the extreme. There is bound to be some exaggerations, and some interpreting of things in the worst possible way, when someone is actively looking for gender stereotypes in pop culture.
Yes, it is highly doubtful that the mere shortage of female characters in a piece of fiction makes said piece sexist. This isn't one of the stronger feminist points, imo. There may be legitimate reasons to include only male characters in some works, just like there are legitimate reasons to include only white characters in others (I saw a movie taking place in Roman Britain a year or two ago, and putting a black person in that particular setting wouldn't have made much historical sense).

With that said, I think that feminists are essentially right in that we are not living in a society which is equal, gender wise, and pop culture exists within our society, and reflects its values. I also think that feminists are fighting against subtle attitudes, and bringing them into the light is often difficult. The only chance of making a decent number of people see them is by highlighting examples. I can see that this can and will sometimes target (relatively or mabe even completely) innocent things.
I would like to point out that I don't think writers who make unbalanced pieces of fiction are always doing so on purpose. Like I pointed out in my last post, I don't think Star Wars portrays the genders equally. Nor, in fact, do I think it does so when it comes to race. It is essentially centered around white males (when it comes to its human characters), once you set aside the token minority characters, anyway. However, that does not mean that I think George Lucas is either a misogynist or racist. It is probably just that it occurs to him to write his characters in certain ways that he (and perhaps his intended target audience) most easily relates to.
Even so, I think imbalances sometimes do need to be highlighted, even when it might offend someone (and yes, some people do get way too offended by this). That is mostly so that future pieces of fiction can be more balanced. Again, with regrets to the occasional innocent writer who gets caught in this crossfire, I see it mostly as a result of and backlash against values that need to be questioned.
However, treading a bit carefully may be called for when the case is not set in stone. I guess you could say that you see some work as unbalanced, without pointing fingers at the actual writer.


----------



## Lilmizflashythang (Nov 14, 2012)

Refering to the OP, the people I've seen make these arguments, have been making the argument that because the Feminist A, as you refer to them, says something like: 'because the writer did not include this, this, and this, then they are bad writers, and horrible people.' I will learn how to win a fight, by not fighting before I run across these people. Cause they are scary.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Nov 14, 2012)

Lilmizflashythang said:


> Refering to the OP, the people I've seen make these arguments, have been making the argument that because the Feminist A, as you refer to them, says something like: 'because the writer did not include this, this, and this, then they are bad writers, and horrible people.' I will learn how to win a fight, by not fighting before I run across these people. Cause they are scary.


Maybe that has happened from time to time, but from what I have seen it is usually a bit better articulated than that. Taking any criticism against how you (the general you) have portrayed something or someone as a statement that you are a horrible person is much, imo.
Even if, however, my point stands. Including "strong female characters" and misogyny aren't mutually exclusive, so the argument doesn't work.


----------



## nightdreamer (Nov 19, 2012)

Two things come to mind.  First is that it is almost impossible to pin down without disagreement what constitutes misogyny.  I am a radical feminist, and there are multiple flavors of that, many of which I think are rubbish.  There is Marxist feminism, other types of socialist feminism, liberal feminism, and the more recent eco-feminism.  To slice the pie another way, there are sex-positive and sex-negative feminisms.  There is no universal definition, and consequently you will find no absolute standards against which to gauge a work.  I am less familiar with the study of racism, but I would be astonished if similar complexity doesn't apply.

The second is that I don't believe has to be politically correct.  I strongly believe, in fact, that idea of political correctness is itself politically incorrect in a free society.  If you want to write about a half-naked gun-toting heroine fighting in pornographic poses, then by all means do so.

But to the point of your post, you are absolutely right.  We feel comfortable categorising things, and many of us are most comfortable if there are only two categories: right and wrong, good and bad, hot and cold, male and female.  Reality is not so simple, and it is the mark of a good writer to be able show that complexity and make a good story out of it.  That said, I'm having doubts that I'm a good writer.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Nov 20, 2012)

nightdreamer said:


> Two things come to mind.  First is that it is almost impossible to pin down without disagreement what constitutes misogyny.  I am a radical feminist, and there are multiple flavors of that, many of which I think are rubbish.  There is Marxist feminism, other types of socialist feminism, liberal feminism, and the more recent eco-feminism.  To slice the pie another way, there are sex-positive and sex-negative feminisms.  There is no universal definition, and consequently you will find no absolute standards against which to gauge a work.  I am less familiar with the study of racism, but I would be astonished if similar complexity doesn't apply.


Of course there is a lack of universal standards. This is a problem in many areas in politics. There may not be anything that absolutely everyone will agree constitutes misogyny, but there are things a lot if not most people will agree on.



nightdreamer said:


> The second is that I don't believe has to be politically correct.  I strongly believe, in fact, that idea of political correctness is itself politically incorrect in a free society.  If you want to write about a half-naked gun-toting heroine fighting in pornographic poses, then by all means do so.


This is where I am not entirely agreeing with you. Or maybe I am.
First of all, I don't particularly like the term "politically correct" to begin with. In my experience, it is mostly used by people who want to promote a prejudicial or discriminatory agenda without risking encountering anti-prejudice or anti-discrimination attitudes barring their way.
The thing about free society is, I think it is a bit of a myth. Or maybe it isn't, but to the extent many people think this "freedom" can be upheld is.
What I am getting at here is that freedom or democracy (or whatever you choose to call it) certainly has its own paradoxes and contradiction. The main one, of course, is that it would permit the destruction of itself, as an ideal and/or as a system. Yes, people in a free society can and may use their (by the system) so granted freedoms to attempt to destroy the very same rights and freedoms of others, or maybe even to destroy the entire system itself. This has indeed already happened, and there is no guarantee an elected party won't attack the freedoms of others again. Frankly, for freedom and democracy not to have this internal paradox, you'd have to believe no person or group would harbour any ill will at all towards any other group, in such a way that they would (ab)use their freedoms to attempt to destroy those of others, and that is more than a little naive. Clearly, free society can't really survive if a too high percentage of the population in said society don't believe (very much) in its very ideals.
So, as a free society can't really start jailing the prejudicial people whose political agendas would threaten its very freedoms (whether they admit it or not), it has to resort to other means to defend its values and ideals. It has to strongly discourage prejudice and discrimination attitudes or agendas, psychologically, by condemning them. Indeed, this very defense of freedoms (often of weak groups) is what I believe is often mislabeled "political correctness". It very much has a place in free society, at least as long as it does not go too far.

Sorry if that came out as a lecture, but I have been thinking about that paradox/dilemma for years, and I feel strongly about it, and wanted to explain why.



nightdreamer said:


> But to the point of your post, you are absolutely right.  We feel comfortable categorising things, and many of us are most comfortable if there are only two categories: right and wrong, good and bad, hot and cold, male and female.  Reality is not so simple, and it is the mark of a good writer to be able show that complexity and make a good story out of it.  That said, I'm having doubts that I'm a good writer.


Then we totallt agree on this, at least. Well, not about your doubts about being a good writer (which seemed mostly to be a side note), as I have not read your writing and consequently cannot have any opinion about it, either way.


----------

