Heinlein and women?

[Brian G Turner]

How well does Heinlein actually write women characters?

When my girlfriend read Strange in a Strange Land she couldn;t be bothered to finish the book because the gender stereotypes bugged her that much. However, I've read complaints that, in Number of the Beast, and the Cat That Walked Through Walls, the female role effectively over-takes the male protagonist lead in resolving conflicts.

So how does Heinlein actually deal with women overall?? Sucessfully? a mixed quality of approaches??

 

[Leto]

Although I love his work, he has no clue about the "feminine psychology". Even when female role leads, he accumulates clichés over clichés. He's a mix of Roman pater familias and agressive feminism.

And yes, Jubal Harshaw's ladies were also one of the reason why "Stranger in a strange land" bores me so much.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I agree with Leto on both counts. Harshaw's harem of secretaries - bah.

There's a lot I enjoy about Heinlein's work, but his dpeiction of women consistently bothers me. He seems to go to great pains to create capable, brilliant women, and then add the fact that they are beautiful and also sexually active - and somehow one gets the feeling that it's really the last two qualities that count. Poul Anderson almost falls into that trap as well, but seems to have a greater empathy for women.

 

[BandSmurf]

I don't know... I'm female, and I love Heinlein portrayal of women. Perhaps because of the fact that while he yes, uses an incredible number of cliches and stereotypes... well... I've seen the truth in most of them when interacting with other women. Stranger in a Strange Land is one of my favorite books, and the secretaries don't bother me.

I also think that when Heinlein was writing affected his work. Maybe my thinking is off, but wasn't he writing during the time when yes, women had their suffrage, but they were still mostly housewives? I think the strong, intelligent, sexy characters could very well be a result of the conflict Heinlein sees between the past and the future roles of women.

Friday in particular is an example of a woman who is facing conflict with her own identity, given she was a test tube baby raised in a creche. One of the main forms of reassure that many people (including women) in the novel give her is compliments on her appearance. I think the 'big deal' Heinlein makes over the women's beauty is simply a reflection of how much women do think about their looks. And quite frankly, there aren't too many novels in which the women are portrayed as homely, or even average looking. And if they are, generally some sort of transformation occurs within that person.

My question would be though, for the women who think Heinlein is too stereotypical, and doesn't understand women, well, take a look around you at the average female. I see too many women in real life that contain these traits to think Heinlein didn't understand women, at least, as well as any man could.

~BandSmurf

 

[chartreuse]

Heinlein was a creature of the times. Back then women weren't supposed to be accomplished at ANYTHING. In this context, I think he did a very good job with his (often absent) female characters. This is especially apparent in his juvenile fiction, where females are skilled professionals, and often whup some testosterone-laden arse. I know this will amuse you, but my favorite Heinlein books are still Space Cadet and Citizen of the Galaxy! The boys are taught some valuable lessons by matriarchal societies in both of these books.

Like Brian's girlfriend, I never could get into Stranger in a Strange Land either. Not only were the female characters ridiculous, but I found his writing style to be stilted and boring. Perhaps it was over-edited, or something...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I enjoyed Heinlein in my early twenties. When I went back to reread some of his books twenty years later I wondered how I could have liked them so much. Taking a second look at his female characters was particularly disappointing.

Circa 1970, it seemed enough that someone like Podkayne could be the main character in a book of science fiction and be smart and have all those interesting things happen. Circa 1990 she often made me want to gag. It also didn't escape me that as smart as she was, it was her little brother who was the child prodigy.

Heinlein was definitely a product of his times in regard to his attitudes toward women. Unfortunately, that seems to be especially evident whenever he tried to be very hip and with it.

I forget the title of the book where his female lead spent half her time trying on g-strings.

 

[Leto]

Heinlein was a creature of the times. Back then women weren't supposed to be accomplished at ANYTHING. In this context, I think he did a very good job with his (often absent) female characters. This is especially apparent in his juvenile fiction, where females are skilled professionals, and often whup some testosterone-laden arse. I know this will amuse you, but my favorite Heinlein books are still Space Cadet and Citizen of the Galaxy! The boys are taught some valuable lessons by matriarchal societies in both of these books.

Personnally, I've got a soft spot for Have spacesuit, will travel and Podkaine. But I prefer his more "adult" works. More cats in it.
As I said earlier, most women characters in Heinlein work are unreal - even at his time of writing women didn't behave like - and I'm in total disagreement with a good 60 % of his political or social point of view (at least), yet the man was able to write good, interesting stories with likeable characters (as Gwen, Friday and Maureen Jonhson Long for the female side). The only one story I can't stand is Stranger in a strange landl, because of Jubal's ladies (I know he's their boss, but no bosss ever behave like this around me if he want to stay out of physical or legal trouble), Jubal itself, and the path of the books which was really too slow.

 

[guthrie]

I generally agree about the female characters being ratehr poor. One of my friends said that Heinleins 2nd wife was ratehr like the overwhelming female charactes he has in his later books, rather than the normally stereotypical ones in the earlier books. At one point when I was younger I thought heinlein was sex mad with an oedipal complex. I wouldnt go quite that far now, but still.....
A website with a damn good explanation and exploration of Heinlein and women is this:
http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/lounge.htm

Alexei Panshin wrote one of the first books on Heinlein and his work back in 1965, and had a short correspondence with the man. I was so glad to read that someone else thought the same about Heinlein as myself, though my thoughts were kind of confused and incomplete.
Read it all, and then things will make more sense.

 

[laznlor]

I think one of the most important things to remember when trying to analyze his women is his wife, Ginny. As far as I can tell, not only is she pretty much the template for most of the women in all of his books, she pretty much IS Maureen. And Jubal's secretaries? In a perfect world, when women don't fear rape or harassment, when self conciousness is abolished, when shame is no longer an issue and there is actual respect (not just lip service) between all people, why wouldn't people behave like that? The idea that they would need to be shy about being naked or open with their boss, with whom they live, is little more than social conditioning. He is a father figure, not a lech. Well, not totally a lech anyway. One of the things that makes Stranger such a great, many layered read is that you really should look up the meanings of the names of all the main characters, and also find a collection of Rodin sculptures, as SO many of them are connected. My point being I guess, you can't take the characterization at face value. Well, you can, but I think you get a better idea of what the intention was if you filter it this way.

 

[Leto]

Not suprise by Maureen as the representation of his wife. It's a typical case of of writer fallen in love with his character.
The Jubal's staff didn't "irk" me by their nakedness (as long as it's warm enough why not), but by the clichés on women behavior each of them was. Compared to Maureen- where you can see he has an intimate (yet still bias by his Y chromosme) knowledge of her mind, these three women are too unrealist to be belieavable.
Beside, Jubal just get on my nervew with his pontification tendencies.

 

[laznlor]

what is so unrealistic about them?

 

[Leto]

Long time since I've read the book, but basically I had the impression to read the script of a 30s/40s movie with Veronica Lake, Jean Harlow and Lana Turner speaking. As I've said : it's

a mix of Roman pater familias and agressive feminism

. More precisely, the dialogues are really Roman pater familias-type (including machismo touch) and the situation are very agressive feminism.

Don't get me wrong, although I think Heinlein don't understand women psychologies and tend to placate his own point of view over them, I love most of his feminine characters (Maureen but also Gwen Hazel, or Dora especially).

 

[laznlor]

Isn't it possible that its not that his characterizations aren't realistic, they are just idealized? Thats how I see them anyway. I think that if women were not raised in an atmophere of such pettiness and fear as they are now, thats how we would be.

 

[Leto]

Isn't it possible that its not that his characterizations aren't realistic, they are just idealized?

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[laznlor]

With all those negatives and everything?

 

[Leto]

he's a man from mid-20th century, he wrote idealized women and men from his point of view.
I'm a woman from the 21st century, my idealization is notexactly the same than his, but it won't stop me from reading avidingly his books. His characters' flaws are part what makes them interesting for us, as readers.

 

[Drake Leon]

Pfft. Heinlein's female characters weren't realistic at all. They were, indeed, idealized. HOWEVEr, in the atmosphere in which he usually places them, I could actually see women acting a lot like that on a regular basis- though I know that it wouldn't be as common as he portrays it. At the same time, it could be worse. If you dig deep enough into his work, you see they're more like real people than they seem... And yes, he did base them off his wife rather exclusively, which is another huge reason they're so odd. His wife was an odd woman. Wonderful, but odd.

 

[The Ace]

A Heinlein character spending half a book trying on g-strings. Wasn't she a bit over-dressed ?

 

[j d worthington]

If it's the character I think you're referring to, shouldn't that be "s/he"? But, if it's that particular book, that's an odd one all the way 'round ... though I have come to like it considerably more than I did the first time I read it (found it quite dull first time, as a matter of fact). Or are we talking about a completely different book, and my memory's decided to dump some vital information somewhere along the way?