Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Was John Norman a Misogynist?

Lately, a lot of feminists have fought against the publication of the Gor series of novels, and often won. The term "slavery" punches our buttons. Slavery is indignation, unrighteous, and how slaves are treated in the books -- an outrage!

But please, let us understand why the books were written in the first place. John Norman is the philosopher came up with the anti-feminism philosophy that a woman's place is naturally submissive and the man is naturally dominate. Although it is true, to use slavery to present that view -- and to present it in novels rather than open debate really proves how sick our culture has become.

John Norman isn't misogynist, he's simply trying to present a different point of view. Misogyny is a label invented. I never even heard of the word before until it was used against me at one point. What John Norman argues through the book that Man and Woman are who they really are. No matter what is done to remake us, we are what we were intended to be.

Not one person invented Man and Woman. Reading all about John Norman's drama with his rights being violated has given me a sense of indignation. After all, truly, no man has ever been maligned so much by misconception and false authority. Save perhaps the Master of Masters -- Joshua ben Joseph of Nazereth -- and Joseph Smith.

Truely woman was made for a true purpose as a daughter of Eve. In our world, in all of humanity there is nothing more beautiful or more prized than a woman. Helen had the face that launched a thousand ships. When she was stolen away by Paris of Troy, her husband demanded her back and a thousand ships were launched -- bringing about the downfall of the Trojan Empire. An epic moment that would be remembered as an event at the end of the Bronze Age.

John Norman does not hate women. Nay, his poetic verse says much about the man. "By their fruits, ye shall know them." The next segment, I'm going to talk about friendship: true, pure, real, and best.


Anonymous said...

utter crap. an alternative view is just that. to actively seek the most prejudiced views is nothing but an act of aggression.

sorry but the "not what we are made to be, but what we inherently are" statement is the most ridiculous one applied to the human being as it stands.
what we are, is a process that creates and shapes its social form to its whim. we can apply that so that nobody gains at the loss of another or just go for the other extreme which is Gor. choice. that is what makes us human.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever tried to have a debate when your right to speak freely is on trial even as you try to raise your voice? If you have, perhaps you will see what - allow me to borrow a term from the poster above me - UTTER CRAP it is to say that it is not misogynistic to debate a woman's right to freedom. Freedom isn't just a tendency. It is a divine right. It is the difference between being being a responsible human being and a mindless animal. To say that women should not have freedom is to say that they should not be human, and I think that that is VERY different from 'being what we really are.' Unless, of course, one is saying that women are LESS than human... and in such a case I do not think that the label 'misogynist' is misapplied.

What really gets me is that John Norman has no clue how awful he is in this regard. He'll say, "I'm not a misogynist! I love women!" But in the same breath, he'll say, "Too bad women aren't as smart or capable as men, and would be utterly ruined if left to their own devices, but we love them anyway because they're so cute ^_^" This is basically treating women like dogs. It is basically BELIEVING women are dogs. And trust me, speaking as one who has known many, WOMEN ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING DOGS.

Perhaps you think I am overreacting. I do not think I am; why else, in the books, would women be forbidden from playing Kaissa (Gorean Chess)? Free women are understood not to play it, and slaves can actually have their hands chopped off for so much as touching the "sacred game." It would "dishonor it." Why? While it's never explicitly stated, I think it's clear: it's because it's assumed that women are useless except as accessories to men, and nothing they could do with a kaissa board could possibly be genuine. Norman would probably assume that if a woman played kaissa, it would never be for the game itself, but as an insecure gesture in order to pretend to be a man or a way to try to get a man. The Gorean woman does nothing for herself, nothing healthy at least. Her only drives are selfless love of men or selfish pride; anything else is assumed simply not to exist in the female heart, or to exist as a pale imitation of men. They cannot honor anything, they can only defer themselves to men's honor.

Apparently, understanding that concept - honor, respect of the world, the glory of rising to meet it, be it through brains or brawn - only comes with a cock and balls.

Well, Fuck You, John Norman. I think I shall continue my pale imitation of having my own personality, interests, and ambitions regardless of whether you approve or not. You might be relieved to learn that I am not going to touch any of your precious kaissa boards, but I would be pleased to fight you on less trivial intellectual battlefields. Not to do so would be disrespectful of philosophy - like letting a dog attempt to play chess would be disrespectful of the game.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...