Heinlein old fashioned and sexist?

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I always see a lot of Heinlein defenders rushing to point out that the ideas espoused in his books are not his own - when they find these ideas hard to defend. I just thought I'd mention that.

I find many of the ideas contained in his later novels simply grotesque; I disagree with many of the ideas in his earlier novels. I'd still say he's central to any understanding of the history of the SF genre.

He was a great storyteller at least in the earlier part of his career, charting out one of the more sweeping and exciting future histories in the genre, he wrote some great YA novels. In his latter career he helped prove the point that SF could be as much about political, social and philosophical debate as gadget speculation and high adventure.

However, everything following Stranger In A Strange Land is markedly weaker than his earlier material as a story. A novel like The Number Of The Beast does his reputation no favours and I Will Fear No Evil needed to be several hundred pages shorter.

There is bothersome gender business throughout his body of work (I find the 'love affair' in The Door Into Summer as fundamentally problematic as the relationships at the centre of Lolita or The Time-Traveller's Wife) and I don't think it helps or is required to exonerate Heinlein of ever, ever having had a less than awesome and laudable thought in order to appreciate him both for his standing in the SF pantheon and his very considerable body of entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking work.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Also I find a lot of Urlik's remarks on women, careers and freedom deeply disturbing and wrong.

 

[DrMclony]

The very title of this thread puzzles me. Of course he's old fashioned. For crying out loud he's been DEAD nearly thirty years!... If somebody is bemoaning that then... Facepalm....

As for sexist? I seem to recall him in his day being heralded by feminists as the one true egalitarian SF author in a sea of sexist drivel. What's changed?

I will tell you what changed: Feminism. People following Greer and her ilk (and certainly Greer herself) lost the plot completely towards the end of the eighties and feminism has not been about equality of rights or celebrating strengths ever since. Heinlein believed in both those overriding values of feminism and as such is going to be crucified by the anti-masculine anima-supremesist feminism of the twenty first century.

While the true feminist is shouted down and browbeaten to sitting at home head in hands, the new breed destroy all that they fought for by decrying evils where they don't exist. Instead of righting wrongs and leveling the field, they fight to be the very things that feminism was spawned to fight against. This undoes all the good work of those that came before, and leaves in ruins the opportunities of their daughters AND their sons - the only equality they bring is destruction.

Heinlein would never have stood for that. So they hate him.

My 2 cents...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Let's stick to the subject of Heinlein, his works, and his views, and not veer off into an attack on modern feminism.

Because that would be off topic, inflammatory, and could just lead to someone saying something that could result in this thread being locked.

 

[DrMclony]

fair call I suppose, in which case I will rephrase myself to simply the statement that heinlein "believed in both those overriding values of feminism"

This is not a conjecture - it is a stated belief that he espoused outside of his fictional written works. Now as to linking my thoughts to the thread, I feel I need to clarify something:

Please note that debate is not attack. I perhaps could have phrased my statements less aggressively, and for that I apologise. However I still see that debate as something that is not inflammatory. This is something I see every day and it rankles rather badly - that an opposing viewpoint is often viewed not for its merit, but rather as an attack and as such is devalued. I would have no problem if a modern feminist of the particular style I mentioned wanted to come in here and prove me wrong. I see your point, but I don't feel that my post should be inflammatory. It raises a well documented and debated philosophical point that is often ignored by those it seeks to 'enlighten'. (yes I know that enlighten might inflame but it is not intended as such. To enlighten a person to your own view is the purpose of all debate)

Heinlein's viewpoints would agree with it if I interpret his various conjectures correctly. Now THAT is conjecture as it is me interpreting what the man thought based on my understanding of his words. Every person who states an opinion on the topic of this thread is doing the same except where they state a direct and clarified quote from the source - ie from interview or factual writings of the subject, RA Heinlein.

Finally I would disagree on one point - the discussion of sexist attitudes - be they perceived or real - of any author, will always be linked to discussions of feminism. Sexist attitudes are repulsive. And Feminism is always to be commended for its work in removing such from the cultural mindset. As sexist laws, sexist attitudes, and sexist practices are the basic originating targets of feminist change, the discussion is not therefore off topic. Heinlein was a staunch feminist long before the term was in popular use.

 

[DrMclony]

Ok moving firmly back on topic....

Heinlein has at times been accused of creating Lazarus long to operate as a mouthpiece for his views. Now I believe he did himself refute this, but never the less it has been stated. I note that people earlier in this thread talked of how strange it is that his writings seem to be thought of as his actual belief.

If indeed Lazarus Long is his mouthpiece, then it can be seen as an argument for both sides of the coin. Take for example the following quotes from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long:

For the statement he is sexist:
"a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires"

For the statement he is NOT:
"A woman is not property, and husbands who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld"

You decide:
"I came, I saw, She conquered... The original Latin seems to have been garbled"

I can understand how some may see sexist attitudes in his writing. In reading them twenty years ago I didn't see it, but things do change. However I think with all writing we have to realise it is not necessarily the actual opinions of the author - what is the context? what is he trying to make you think about? Sometimes the simplistic view leads us to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Blackrook]

It's ridiculous to call Heinlein sexist, he was very ahead of his time.

In Puppet Master, Mary is an agent just as lethal and dangerous as the main character Sam. It is only after they marry that Mary starts acting subservient to Sam, but that was more wishful thinking than reality because I've never known a woman to act that way towards her husband.

In Starship Troopers, women serve in the space navy and he states that they actually are better pilots then men. Only in the combat-oriented M.I. are women not allowed to serve -- but that is still true today.

In Moon is a Harsh Mistress he states that women are independent and when they marry they have a dominant role in the family.

 

[Diggler]

I've only read Farnham's Freehold and Starship Troopers. Farnham, you could say is quite racist. It is based around a middle class white family being transported some 5000 years into the future, where coloured people are the master race and Anglo people are nothing more than slaves.

I found both of these books to be quite long winded, with elaborate details of militaria and survival techniques.

 

[DrMclony]

is it racist or is it his attempt to point out how bad racism was at the time he wrote by reversing the situation? commentary about an issue is often mistaken as an example of it these days...

 

[Connavar]

I've only read Farnham's Freehold and Starship Troopers. Farnham, you could say is quite racist. It is based around a middle class white family being transported some 5000 years into the future, where coloured people are the master race and Anglo people are nothing more than slaves.

I found both of these books to be quite long winded, with elaborate details of militaria and survival techniques.

How is it racist to do a bizzaro world of the way America was back when blacks was discriminated. SF writer writing a future world that sounds like a what if of his current times its not suprising.

Alot Details,survival techniques is one of the things many of his books are rated for. He wrote alot of good adventure,survivle,war themed novels. He is known for Hard SF writer, he cant jump over the science babble.

 

[Diggler]

I am not one to point fingers at people. I know very little of Heinlein to possibly pass judgement on his personal beliefs. But Farnham's Freehold did have rather glaring racist overtones. Whether it was a commentary on the way coloured people were treated during the 60's, and before, I have no way of knowing.

Both books I have read of his have been intricately detailed. While I do agree it is very thorough, and shows the remarkable amount of effort spent researching, it unluckily is not my cup of tea.

 

[J-Sun]

I wouldn't judge Heinlein on those two books (for sexism, racism, or even cup of teaness) - Starship Troopers is arguably his most controversial work and was bounced by its initial publisher and Farnham's Freehold is the one Heinlein (and I've think read all but his last and his posthumous 'first') that I didn't finish. I'd recommend The Past Through Tomorrow, Double Star, his Scribners juveniles, etc. If those aren't your cup of tea, then, yeah, he's definitely not for you but, just from a historical point of view, it'd probably still be worthwhile.

 

[Diggler]

I do still have a couple of his books around somewhere. What they are, I could not tell you though

 

[Pyan]

(ST) was bounced by its initial publisher

Scribners rejected it as a juvenile, and asked for so many changes that RAH, who was already unhappy about his treatment by the juvenile editor at Scribners, refused to change it, placing it at Putnams.

Embarrassingly for Scribners, it promptly won the 1960 Hugo for Best Novel...

 

[J-Sun]

Scribners rejected it as a juvenile, and asked for so many changes that RAH, who was already unhappy about his treatment by the juvenile editor at Scribners, refused to change it, placing it at Putnams.

Embarrassingly for Scribners, it promptly won the 1960 Hugo for Best Novel...

Yep - I didn't mean to imply anything qualitative by the fact that it was rejected but only to point out that the controversy started early.

(An interesting angle on that, btw, is that it might not have won the Hugo had it been published as a juvenile. There seems to have been an anti-juvenile bias. Certainly, Heinlein wrote many superb examples and none of them won the Hugo though I believe there were some nominations. -- Wow. I looked it up at the Locus award index and there was only one nomination: Have Space Suit.)

 

[Connavar]

Im very sentistive to racism,sexism because i dont like to read that stuff, when it comes to RAH its 99% PC talk that is more critical of his times than his views. Too many contemporary SF readers just dont know how to respect history. If i was reading Edgar Allan Poe would i call him sexist because he didnt write women different than his times, the way they were seen as in 1800s.....

DrMclony

is it racist or is it his attempt to point out how bad racism was at the time he wrote by reversing the situation? commentary about an issue is often mistaken as an example of it these daysDrMcloney said it best in this thread!

 

[iansales]

Any book that has a female character say that nine out of ten times when a woman is raped she deserved it, is not commentary. It would be if the assertion was subsequently argued against. But in Stranger in a Stranger Land it isn't. In fact, the character then goes on to say that it's good for attractive women to show off their naked bodies to dirty old men. This is not RAH turning sexism on its head, this RAH being sexist and trying to disguise it by using a female mouthpiece.

 

[Blackrook]

Farnham's Freehold is written so that white people might understand how bad slavery and discrimination are. To accomplish this, he reverses the role and makes white people the slaves. Anyone who says this is racist is not getting the point.

 

[Pyan]

Wow. I looked it up at the Locus award index and there was only one nomination: Have Space Suit.

Farmer in the Sky actually did win a RetroHugo - but it's up to you how much credence you give to that sort of award..

 

[Connavar]

Any book that has a female character say that nine out of ten times when a woman is raped she deserved it, is not commentary. It would be if the assertion was subsequently argued against. But in Stranger in a Stranger Land it isn't. In fact, the character then goes on to say that it's good for attractive women to show off their naked bodies to dirty old men. This is not RAH turning sexism on its head, this RAH being sexist and trying to disguise it by using a female mouthpiece.

First we are not talking about that novel and second we are talking about historical realism. Was RAH called sexist,racist in his times or was he like most people in his 40s,50s ?

If RAH wrote today and wrote sexistic it would be whole another deal, he would stand out. He didnt stand out negativly in a America of the 50s race,sex issues and the America who had Japanese in camps.

Why are some fans singling out RAH is my point. Every old writer of his era had old views on race,sex like most people back then. The guy was born over a 100 years ago!