Hyel ([info]hyel) wrote in [info]cheesemongers,
@ 2008-04-26 09:20:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:discussion, group read 08

Group read discussion post #8
Here we go!

Next week's segment is:

In the huge ironing room, only one person was working at the long boards... ... And, right now, she wasn't inclined to argue. (page 411 of the UK paperback)


(Post a new comment)


[info]hyel
2008-04-26 07:46 am UTC (link)
Recently I hardly post here because, by the end of the week, I've forgotten what I read in the beginning. :D It's what you get for reading two books at once. So today I've got the book right here to remind me of what I thought on Monday. Okay!

- So Blouse had a man shave him all his life. Just how rich do you think Blouse is? Since it's Borogravia, they can probably get a private barber/servant fairly cheaply, and it could be he's the same quality of a servant as Blackadder's Baldrick (who you can hire for a turnip). But he also went to a gentlemen's school. Is Borogravia poor all the way to the top, or is it more of a case of a poor low populace with a lot of goodies flowing to the top? There must be some money for pomp.

- Jackrum. Either he really is ancient, or he intentionally took up another man's identity when joining up, perhaps because that way he'd already have a reputation when he started out. At least, according to what Hubukurk said, he was there himself to fight the lad's father in a bar. Well, perhaps that should be discussed with all the facts in the spoilery thread.

- "A fossil government led by a picture" - another nod to 1984?

- I think the reason Jackrum helps the lads instead of taking them to a court martial at this point is because he's seen court martials before, and agreeing to voting is better than suppressing a mutiny when it comes to bodycount on your own side. At least this way the girls have a small chance of coming out of this alive and if not, hey, they might have taken down a few of the enemies first.

- You know, I tried to find a song like the Cheesemongers one, but I haven't so far. There's one about a soldier who meets a girl on a May morning and they make a date for him to sneak into her room at night, and he does, and they turala, and she asks him if he'll marry her and he says sorry, gotta get back to the regiment. It's not the same one at all, but it's called Seventeen Come Sunday, which is what Polly gave her age as when she joined up, and is pretty much what happened to Shufti, I guess. Oh well!

- By the way, 'hurricane'? Ouch. :D

- Daphne! I bet it's a reference to 'Some Like It Hot'.

- Mothers and medals. That was terrible. I'm glad there's no war in Europe.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-26 08:38 am UTC (link)
Nuggan is dead, according to Wazzer, and all that remains are echoes of people's fears and pettiness. This does make sense of some of the Abominations we've heard so far.

Dwarfs: Fear of the Other.
Chocolate: Dislike for the rich and indulgant.
Cats: Dislike of being kept awake all night due to one reason or the other.
Crop rotation: Fear of change.
Jigsaw puzzles: Fear of intellectualism and, possibly, creativity.

The colour blue: Yeah, OK, this one stumps me. Any thoughts?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-26 09:28 am UTC (link)
Also, Cats: Remember when they were bigger than you and liked the taste of ape-meat? Never could trust those bastards.

Of course if Nuggan also responded to desires, there'd be some cat-worship. You always either love or hate them.

Very good points you make!

Blue is calming, therefore bad. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]blienky27
2008-04-26 05:18 pm UTC (link)
Blue: as in blueblood, ie more of the disliking the rich?

I dunno, just a thought.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-26 11:13 pm UTC (link)
My one single beef with MR, let me show you it.

So, I like Pratchett and all, but every time I re-read the book I just can't help wtfing about the squad bonding over a nice round of tea and victim blaming, or what reads as such to me even though they're talking about folk songs, which clearly are only about sex, amirite? Case in point, p. 351, UK edition:

"It was her own fault. She should have been able to tie up her own garters," said Lofty.

"Yeah. Probably wanted her cheese stolen," said Tonker.

"Wise words," said Jackrum. [...]

Now, I think the description of what's happening in the actual song is ambiguous at best, the girls' reaction is what's really getting to me. Both Lofty talking about the milkmaid being at "fault", and Tonker saying she "probably wanted her cheese stolen" imply that it had been so far widely assumed that the milkmaid, in fact, did not want her cheese stolen at all. Even though the undone garther thing looks like a winkwinknudgenudge, I doubt that the folk song is, in fact, less about a woman taking charge of her sexuality and more about a woman being taken advantage of.

And I know one probably can't expect Feminism 101 rhetorics from a bunch of country girls, but one can expect the guy who wrote Monstrous Regiment to reflect that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-26 11:22 pm UTC (link)
I felt that the girls bitter "probably wanted her cheese stolen" was more of a "she shouldn't have been so trusting because in this world everyone's a bastard" rather than "must have been a slut", but you raise a good point. Jackrum WOULD think that's a good attitude, too, as he's all about being the one with the cheese.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-27 12:54 pm UTC (link)
The problem with the "she shouldn't have been so trusting" rhetoric is that the bastards of this world (roundworld, discworld, same thing) aren't lab rats reacting to one specific set of stimuli, they're sentient agents who know exactly what they're doing. If she wouldn't have been so trusting, the same thing may have happened slightly differently.

And come to think of it, this is not the only instance in the book where responsibility to act is assigned solely to women. See Polly's inner monologue on p. 342: Put on trousers and the world changes. We walk different. We act different. I see these girls and I think: idiots! Get yourself some trousers!

Of course, a discussion of how defaulting to a male appearance in a male-dominated society may or may not be a solution comes up later in the book, but this messages right here, right now, seems a little too unreflected to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-27 03:14 pm UTC (link)
Like I said, you do make a good point. Blaming the victim takes responsibility away from the actual culprit, and it's ridiculous (if blame is to be assigned) to blame the whole incident on the wronged party.

I do feel that there is a lot that an oppressed party can do to at least not be a part of her/his oppression, unless it's the grossest form of oppression such as rape or violence or apartheid laws. Obviously, the oppressor is in the wrong, but sometimes a person lets him/herself be oppressed, which doesn't help either. I see women buying women's magazines and I think, idiots! Read a newspaper! (Women's magazines tend to be the most vile sort of chauvinistic claptrap, worst of all because it may have a veneer of feminism covering the oozing mass of cosmetics commercials and dieting advice.) Two things must happen - the oppressor must change, and quite often the oppressed has to make them change, because if everything's going smoothly for the oppressor and he's enjoying all his privileges, why would he change?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-04-27 04:31 pm UTC (link)
because if everything's going smoothly for the oppressor and he's enjoying all his privileges, why would he change?

Because it's the decent thing to do. I don't have much patience for men who never questioned their privileged position even in the presence of feminism, just because somehow they were never challenged personally.

I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that everytime I do something stereotypically female like going to the hairdresser or wearing a short skirt, I somehow justify the pay gap. I can demand equal pay all I want, unless I go the self-employed route I have to be given equal pay at some point. It's important to place the blame where it belongs - on those who perpetuate the oppression and who benefit from it, not those who play along in order to not get hassled and/or still place some value in the majority's opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-27 04:32 pm UTC (link)
... that was me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-27 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Hi. :D I replied.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]amazon_syren
2008-04-27 10:27 pm UTC (link)
I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that everytime I do something stereotypically female like going to the hairdresser or wearing a short skirt, I somehow justify the pay gap.


What I loathe is the double-bind.

If we live up to the standards of femininity, we're Typical Women (read: "stupid, shallow, brainless/brainwashed and obsessed with appearances), but if we say "screw you, Standards", we're Un-Women, and even worse (granted, read: threatening to the status quo, which isn't actually a bad thing, especially given what the status quo is, but it does put you at (more) risk for random(?) violence, which is a problem).


So, yeah. Basically what you said about the not getting hassled thing.

:-P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-28 04:35 am UTC (link)
I wear a pink shirt and blue jeans, today. I rarely wear more makeup than foundation to cover spots. I have never experienced violence at the hands of a stranger, except for that time when I was 13 or so and these three kids about my age randomly attacked me. It was weird. I ran.

I really don't think people have a problem with a woman just being a woman and walking down the street being a woman, whether she wears make-up and diets or not. It's individual women who think that the world turns on whether or not their granny-panties are showing. There's a difference between making yourself pretty for fun, and doing it because you feel you have to in order to pass for a decent human being.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Anecdote time! When I was about 12 to 15*, I was catcalled at, proposed to, engaged in conversations that I was too polite to end, asked for my phone number, and/ or followed home pretty frequently. These adult men sure as hell did have a problem with a woman walking down the street being... well... an awkward teenager looking utterly, utterly normal, really, but they also succeeded pretty well in making that problem mine.

(*To be fair, I already looked more or less legal back then, at least until I began looking as if I'd dressed and dyed my hair in the dark.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-29 10:35 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm fat, so I don't get catcalled, but I don't think you anything to invite it or that they were right to do it - no, that's unprovoked harassment and an assholey thing to do.

Back to my point. If you don't wear make-up or dress up to make yourself as attractive as possible or diet till you fit Cosmo's standards, people are probably not going to treat you any worse than they would anyway. It might be the different kind of bad. There is some reported advantages to looking good, such as getting free drinks from men who want to sleep with you, and disadvantages, such as getting catcalled more often than fat girls. The question is, why do some women aspire to look so gorgeous, to the detriment of their own happiness or career or pleasure? Why MUST they? Which part of this is culture shaming them into wearing cosmetics because having pimples means you cavort with the devil, or something? If this is our culture, we should reject it and carve our own way, demand and expect to be valued and listened to whether or not we look attractive. That includes IF we look attractive. If you're not working too hard to be gorgeous, I just think it might be easier to develop yourself and your self-esteem; it shouldn't depend on what you smeared on your face this morning. Although, again, I admit that make-up and dressing up might boost one's confidence; I just don't think it should be necessary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hyel
2008-04-27 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Not everybody thinks it is the decent thing to do to let women, or racial minorities, or homosexuals to have equal rights. Considering how many different moral systems there are, let alone personal twists in those morals, or how many people ignore conventional morals altogether, I repeat: Why would these people change, if they're not made to, or if the situation is not such that it benefits them to stop oppressing the weaker or less privileged half?

Doing "feminine" things is not the same as letting people walk all over you. Short skirts and hairdressers are one thing, spending money on cream that's supposed to keep your skin young, or give you dazzling eyes, or dieting just to look nice (and I know I am being a hypocrite in this last thing, but let's ignore that for the sake of the argument) is feeding into the sick body-image women are sort of culturally pressured to have, not to mention a bloody waste of money and time. You get women worrying about what they look like in a bikini or how many men like how she looks, how will she have time to think about important things like power? If she's always thinking her natural skin is showing, or that she is weak for not getting those last few pounds off, how will she have the self-confidence to protect herself or demand her rights? If you do have that self-confidence and you know you are gorgeous despite the idiosyncracies or "imperfections" of your body, or if you know in which order of importance these things are to be set, then be as feminine as you like; but these things do have a negative effect on a lot of women and their self-confidence.

When it comes to women vs men, it's not even an issue of the minority vs the majority, as there are as many of each gender in this planet, and a few more women. Feminists become a minority only because so many women meekly accept the situation and think they deserve less pay/less respect/to be denied jobs because they might become parents etc. Does this make it their fault that this is what's considered normal, that they still have to fight harder for the same jobs? No. It would help, though, if they demanded better.

In my own life, I tend to ignore preconceptions, and just expect fair treatment. I've been taken advantage of before and it got me mad as a bee once I realized it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-27 08:06 pm UTC (link)
Hopefully I'm able to write a more thought-out reply later, but what immediately stood out to me after reading your post is - why are you making excuses for men and leaving little leeway for women? Is it solely because men, by and large, profit from sexism and thus have more to gain from playing along?

And how do you conceptualise "demand better"? Because frequently, when women voice their demands the way men do, they get denied more often (I think there are studies and stuff), so demanding little may be the only way to get anything at all.

In my own life, I am the token loud feminist, but I realise I have the privilege to demand and discuss and challenge without much risk, since I'm still in an academic environment. We'll see how that'll work out when I actually get a job.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]amazon_syren
2008-04-27 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Because frequently, when women voice their demands the way men do, they get denied more often (I think there are studies and stuff), so demanding little may be the only way to get anything at all.

Yup. I feel a bit like I'm living that most of the time. :-P

Looking forward to your more thought-out reply. :-D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hyel
2008-04-28 04:27 am UTC (link)
Where did I make an excuse for men? And all I asked for women to do was to not agree to their own oppression. If the majority of women will settle for less, nothing will ever change. If we all could turn down jobs that did not meet our criteria... and if wishes were horses. I do think women should go to men's professions as much as possible, as the pay gap also has to do with "women's jobs" and "men's jobs". The more women there are in a certain profession, never mind how difficult or important it is, it'll probably have lower wages than it would if men were doing it (Germaine Greer pointed out the lowering of doctors' wages that happened along with more women getting into the profession), so the thing to do is to get a man's job. It'll profit you personally and even the count. It's also an image thing; if I was a seamstress I'd call myself a tailor and double my pay.

I do have a job, and I bluntly use the rules that say I am entitled to equal advantages. Something I keep witnessing is that the boss asks a male colleague to do some extra work and they say no, so they turn to a woman and she says yes, but that does not mean the woman gets a raise - oh no. It just means that the next time, the boss will go straight to the woman whenever there's something unpleasant to do. I say yes quite often, even though I don't want the extra work, just because I see no-one else will do it and I feel sorry for the manager. I should break myself out of that.

Work is not even where the trouble starts; the trouble is finding a job that isn't crappy and badly paid or already being done by someone who, 65% of the time, is a man. Currently I have no complaints (except for the extra work and us being understaffed even though the managers swear black and blue that we are not), since the environment in the working place is pretty good, the hours are regular and they pay maintains my lifestyle with ease.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 07:14 pm UTC (link)
Where did I make an excuse for men?

I'm not sure if this is just a language snafu, but I read this:

Why would these people change, if they're not made to, or if the situation is not such that it benefits them to stop oppressing the weaker or less privileged half?

as making excuses for men. Group A passively staying in their privileged situation, because they'd give up substantial advantages otherwise, is made to look understandable (because I feel like I have to answer "Well, they'd have to be complete idiots for changing themselves"), while group B passively staying in their non-privileged situation is perpetuating the oppression. Which is kinda leaving out that the former requires profitting from social injustice, while the latter doesn't, and choosing to remain or not remain in the status quo therefore has different consequences on an ethical level.

To me, feminism is supposed to bring more freedom of choice, not replacing one set of normative rules with another. Which means supporting choices I wouldn't have made myself. I realise that it's hard to disentangle an individual's personal choice from all the societal pressure surrounding it, but placing blame on women who may occasionally give in to this pressure because nonconformity is being met with negative consequences, or who don't have the time and resources to think about how their choice to read women's mags may affect society, or who *did* think about it and realised they actually like chick lit, seems a little unproductive to me.

I'd rather place the blame on Eva Herman.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 07:17 pm UTC (link)
Make that Eva Herman and those who propagate that one woman writing bullshit is somehow proof that woman as a gender do not want equality, rendering feminism useless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hyel
2008-04-29 10:49 am UTC (link)
But that's not an excuse. :D No no. I wasn't challenging your moral system - I rather agree with it. I think women and men should have equal rights, that women should be allowed to walk down a street without being harassed, that we should get the same sort of appreciation in work and pay according to our merits alone, etc. I don't think it's right that a lot of businesses don't uphold this, and whenever I can I fight to make things right. I still stand by with that rhetorical question of mine. I wasn't talking about right and wrong, there, I was talking about stick and carrot, to actually effect a change.

You do make a good point - I know that in practice women don't always get the choice to demand more, say you've got kids and your husband refuses to support them as he should, and you have to have something. (In which case you should report the bastard and report him again and again until they make him, which a lot of women don't seem to have the energy for after working two crappy jobs and coming home to a third, that of the parent.) I also realize that a lot of women read and enjoy chick lit and women's magazines, which is why I think they should be outlawed. Ahem. (I do sometimes oppose freedom of speech. Perhaps if we had obligatory women's studies in high school for both sexes, I wouldn't mind...) In the ideal, of course, they would have that chance to stand up. People like me, who do have a good job and are not being actively oppressed and have no kids - we at least should be standing up, and we largely still don't. You can't change anything that way.

Values do affect our actions and how we behave, so it's fantastic that it is currently PC to treat the sexes as equal. I mean. That's WONDERFUL! That means that people vote for politicians who support women's rights, and that gets us the stick. Unfortunately in a capitalist society you still also have the carrot of profit from exploiting women who often take the jobs that have to be done, because men won't, not with the same pay; and because there is a family to support. And in a capitalist society, where there's a carrot, there's always a way to avoid the stick. That's where we're at, as far as IO can tell. Of course, I only have my impressions to work with, no real concrete data.

In conclusion, we should promote the idea that women should have equal rights because it's the right moral thing, and also think about how to make it profitable for the largely masculine establishment/world of business to give us that, and make it UNprofitable not to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 07:44 pm UTC (link)
Not everybody thinks it is the decent thing to do to let women, or racial minorities, or homosexuals to have equal rights.

I realise that, and answer thusly: thinking like that is not a decent way of thinking. Problem solved :D There sure are a lot of different moral systems out there, and I'm going with the old "homophobia is not a family value". Justice is a value to a lot of people. It's the decent thing to do. So why does it seem to be so hard for so many to include women, racial minorities, or homosexuals there? After all, not dehumanising people is also the decent thing to do. I hope even members of the respective oppressive group will agree to this.

If you do have that self-confidence and you know you are gorgeous despite the idiosyncracies or "imperfections" of your body, or if you know in which order of importance these things are to be set, then be as feminine as you like; but these things do have a negative effect on a lot of women and their self-confidence.

And if you don't have that self-confidence, then lay off the shaving cream until you have it? I'm not sure if I'm following here. It seems to me that you, I dunno, took a cycle and described it with linear terms. You have the societal standards creating low self-confidence. You have people conforming for whichever reasons, in turn feeding into the societal standards (which have plenty of other sources as well). Reasons for conforming* are a) the standards actually describe the way they are, b) low self-confidence and pressure to conform. Putting an ax to this cycle by telling women to not conform in order to break the cycle is hurting the women who fall under a) and really not doing much for the women under b), because you kind of already need self-confidence in order to not conform.

There are, of course, non-conformers, and they all have their reasons for non-conforming, but I just don't think creating additional pressure on people who already are under pressure is one of those. Because telling women to man up is, at this point, not eliminating the presence of the patriarchy, which has its own ways of making people conform.

*I'm sure there are more, but I'd be really happy if I won't have to type "conform" for at least a few hours :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-29 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Re: morals - not challenging your moral system. :D It's a good one. It's mine, too.

Re: Self-confidence and cosmetics - To quote Dykes to Watch Out For, I'm expressing an ideological conviction, I'm not talking about real people. :D I mean, it's damaging to women's self-control that we have this expectation, culturally, that they must be pretty and perfect and wear facial cream; and that this norm should be challenged in order to free women of the sick body-image wherein one is always disgusting if one isn't like the photoshopped women on the cover of Cosmo. Dig?

Shall we say I support non-conformists and wish we had more of them? For the rest of womanhood, I suppose I can just pat them on the head and say "poor you" while I continue to beat the "enemy" over the head with the Stick of Law and Commonly Accepted Values to try and make them stop taking advantage.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-29 04:10 pm UTC (link)
Shit. I mean self-esteem, of course, or control-of-self's rights, which is probably what I was thinking of when I made that blooper. One shouldn't speed-type at work while avoiding the boss's eye.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]amazon_syren
2008-04-27 10:20 pm UTC (link)
With regards to the gals who don't have trousers.

I'm thinking of the Solid Doves here...

They say that "you can't just run around loose", but... isn't that what they're doing?

I mean, yes, they've got that doorman, but he's an employee, not a manager. Delores Smother's a small-business owner in a world where women can't own property or run businesses or anything of that sort.

I wonder, sometimes, if any of those Ladies of Negotiable Affection think of themselves that way, and were doing the "We're not running around loose" schpiel for the benefit of their allegedly male (I also wonder if they could tell) clients.

Then again, that could be just me. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-28 04:30 am UTC (link)
That's a good point. But then her job is also mostly criminal. I'm sure it's an abomination, so she's breaking Nugganatic law by having that profession, and let's not mention how whoring is not the most dignified of professions for the girls, either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-27 12:41 pm UTC (link)
I hate it when I end up communicating the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. Of course, when I said

I doubt that the folk song is, in fact, less about a woman taking charge of her sexuality and more about a woman being taken advantage of

I really meant:

I think or I get the impression or somesuch.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hyel
2008-04-27 03:04 pm UTC (link)
Hah, I do that all the time! :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]amazon_syren
2008-04-27 10:31 pm UTC (link)
Don't worry about it. Your meaning was clear. :-)

Also: I do that, too, and I'm EFL. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ultem
2008-04-28 05:13 pm UTC (link)
Hullo there,

I’m a regular reader of your group and always find pleasure in reading your most interesting comments. After reading this discussion however I couldn’t stop myself from answering:

I don’t think it was in Pratchett’s intention to speak ill of feminism as such or to blame the victim rather than the culprit. Then we would have to allege that Pratchett intentionally included, in your view latin_doll, a rather male chauvinistic way of thinking. A brief look at his other book shows us that he is really big when concerning such questions and that he usually seems to be in favor of feminism and equality (just think of his book ‘Equal Rights’).

I would prefer a completely different approach: The squad just changed back to skirts and they all feel somewhat weird, right? (‘Wow, Polly thought, look at us: dressed as woman’, p.346 UK) Now: They all are still in their young male chauvinist way of thinking (or at least of behaving or acting) and therefore Lofty said it (‘Yeah. Probably wanted her cheese to be stolen’) perhaps rather accidentally. Or better: Her omnipresent ‘socks’ made her saying it.
This would be supported by another scene on p. 351 (UK):

Polly: ‘(…) he damn well made off with the cheese, right?’
‘Er…. Not damn. Not with the skirt on, Ozz,’ Tonker warned.
‘Then it’s not Ozz, either,’ said Polly.

That Jackrum, whom I consider to be chauvinist in a bizarre way, agrees to that is no great surprise, aye?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 06:08 pm UTC (link)
That's an interesting idea. I disagree, though XD

First of all, I can see the characters saying this, seeing as they grew up in a country that's rather backwards about these things. Still, it was Pratchett who wrote it, and that's where the lack of reflection comes in: it's treated like it's some sort of momentary revelation, it's reinforced by the book's father/ charismatic leader figure, and then it's promptly forgotten about, leaving [info]latin_doll to go what the fuck, this needs balance! Commentary! Reflection! A foot note! Because this way of thinking is still running rampant even in our supposedly enlightened society, which Pratchett is a part of.

And while Pratchett is usually pretty good at leaving my feminist feathers unruffled (see: all the rest of MR, and also Equal Rights, and Susan, and the witches), he's not immune to the occasional chauvinist blunder. The thing about privilege is that it doesn't have to be intentional, as you put it, or even conscious. Part of why I hated Interesting Times (only Discworld novel I didn't finish) were the dozens of really unfunny rape jokes, and I'm pretty sure he didn't put them there in order to piss people off, but instead to make them laugh. Well, haha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ultem
2008-04-28 07:39 pm UTC (link)
Indeed: As you said, there is a lack of explanation in this scene. In my very subjective view Pratchett continuously suffers from such a (minor) lapsus towards the middle of his novels. On the other hand he does beautiful beginnings and ends. :D
There are a few more plausible answers (excuses ;-)) to this:

1.) Sometimes the lads have to ‘lend’ things in order to survive. So, the act of stealing the cheese is more important than the girl. Therefore it is just practical thinking.
2.) In our case the ‘lads’ are all female and [possibly] not very interested in this milkmaid. So they just take the cheese and do without the girl. That is practical thinking as well and reminds me of that ‘helpless maiden’ on p. 107.
3.) Thus Lofty’s remark is to be seen as a kind of defense for their practice of stealing. Nobody wants to run down his own regiment.

It would be fun to turn this parable around and let a female soldier steal something from a naïve country boy…

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]latin_doll
2008-04-28 07:53 pm UTC (link)
1.) Sometimes the lads have to ‘lend’ things in order to survive. So, the act of stealing the cheese is more important than the girl. Therefore it is just practical thinking.

It would make sense, if not for the higly metaphorous nature of the word "cheese", here :D Which makes the act of stealing the cheese really not crucial to survival, which in turn makes the soldier in the song a right bastard.

2.) In our case the ‘lads’ are all female and [possibly] not very interested in this milkmaid.

Two words: Tonker! Lofty! Though it's entirely possible they are not interested in the milkmaid. I'll give you that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ultem
2008-04-29 05:59 pm UTC (link)
It would make sense, if not for the higly metaphorous nature of the word "cheese", here :D Which makes the act of stealing the cheese really not crucial to survival, which in turn makes the soldier in the song a right bastard.

Well, you got to look out for number one...

Two words: Tonker! Lofty! Though it's entirely possible they are not interested in the milkmaid. I'll give you that.

Yes, Tonker and Lofty, our cute couple. Hence I included [possibly]. :)

In spite of the theory’s obvious flaws I’m still favoring a none-feminist approach.
I’m not very deep into feminist philosophy and won’t try to reason on this basis. I could argument theologically, referring to ideas of Sophists and Gnostics who state that every human being is occupied by both the female and the male ‘spirit’. Therefore such a differentiation of physically male and female should be superfluous. I’m no Gnostic, but it would match with my experience of life: I know many rather female males and quite a few very male females. Consequently feminism should be something redundant. Don’t mistake me: The concept of equality is fine yet it should be a natural one. But it still isn’t and that’s sad :C

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-04-29 07:36 am UTC (link)
It would be fun to turn this parable around and let a female soldier steal something from a naïve country boy…

While not with a female soldier so far, granted, there have been plenty of jokes in certain kinds of comedies where the attractive woman ties up some hapless man expecting sex and then runs off with his wallet.

In all cases, we are supposed to laugh at the guy who so eagerly undressed mere moments before.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]_octopod
2008-05-02 07:47 am UTC (link)
I read this as them saying it bitterly and mockingly -- Tonky and Lofter are no strangers to mistreatment of women, and who knows where Jackrum's coming from. When I read this, I hear them making a bitter commentary on victim blaming, with an overtone of "well, it's what they'd all say; what can you do but keep on".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…