Aslan the Wise one
New member
I do not see Him as a sexest. But more of a symbol of The Holy Spirit Of God is any one else with me on this one.?
Queens may fight - Girls may not 1940's vs 2000's
- Thread starter jillthevaliant
- Start date
slideyfoot
New member
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Probably quite a few - thats why I pointed out it was unsurprising in Lewis' case. However, I would hope that bigotry always seems out of touch.
jillthevaliant
New member
ooh! very true!
we talk about lewis being sexist because he knew that battles are ugly and not the best place for the girls, yet what about the many threads of people accusing tumnus of being a pedophile? at least lewis was stating a fact when he said battles are ugly.but today's society wants to immediately assume that any relationship between an adult male and a female child is only based on crude, sexual ideas. we've lost that sense of innocence. and just as a side note, lucy and susan followed aslan, and in the book they got to the battle at the end. makes it difficult for them to even have the option to fight.
slideyfoot
New member
Yes, its possible to interpret "I do not mean you to fight" as "I have something better for you to do". However, what purpose do they serve in the castle beyond providing the reader with a familiar perspective (I imagine Lewis didn't want to tell the episode through Aslan's eyes)? Also, why do they both need to go? I could understand if they had a real purpose to serve, like delivering an important message to rally further support, or guarding the supply trains or something along those lines, but they simply watch Aslan. It isn't necessary - I could perhaps accept just Lucy being there, depending on how young you take her to be at this point (one timeline suggests she is only 8 years old at the time), but Susan is only a year younger than Peter. As girls usually mature faster than boys, she would probably have been around the same size, and a useful addition to the fight.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if I was raising an army to overthrow a tyrant, I would want all the troops I could muster to fight, regardless of gender. Susan is given a bow and arrow which never miss - that sounds like a rather valuable military asset to me.
So, besides the possible patronising sexism, there is also a tactical question.
Of course, this is all merely my perspective. I'm well aware that the issue has been debated for 50 years already, so points and counter-points on the relative sexism/racism etc of Narnia have been made for decades.
Unfortunately true, but even more unfortunately necessary. The internet we're currently typing on has made it easier than ever for sexual predators to latch onto vulnerable youth, so the current climate is unsurprising. However, I agree that it has reached ridiculous levels - I can recall a news story in which a mother got into trouble because she sent some pictures to be developed of her baby daughter in the bath.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if I was raising an army to overthrow a tyrant, I would want all the troops I could muster to fight, regardless of gender. Susan is given a bow and arrow which never miss - that sounds like a rather valuable military asset to me.
So, besides the possible patronising sexism, there is also a tactical question.
Of course, this is all merely my perspective. I'm well aware that the issue has been debated for 50 years already, so points and counter-points on the relative sexism/racism etc of Narnia have been made for decades.
Unfortunately true, but even more unfortunately necessary. The internet we're currently typing on has made it easier than ever for sexual predators to latch onto vulnerable youth, so the current climate is unsurprising. However, I agree that it has reached ridiculous levels - I can recall a news story in which a mother got into trouble because she sent some pictures to be developed of her baby daughter in the bath.
slideyfoot said:
The purpose of them not being there is to further drive home the Christian allegory in the Stone Table scene. When Jesus was crucified He had very few friends around him, and most of them were female. Then when He rose from the dead, it was the women who saw Him first because they were tending His tomb while the men hid in the upper room. The fact that the two Pevensie girls were with Aslan when He died and rose from the dead is not a coincidence.
slideyfoot
New member
It really doesn't need any further emphasis - the parallel is already clear. I still don't agree that Susan's presence is required on top of Lucy's, if someone needs to be present at all. I've heard various Christian interpretations saying that the two girls represent certain figures present at the crucifixion and/or the resurrection, but I feel even in a Christian allegory, its unnecessary. The relation to the Bible is already easily made, so if Susan and Lucy were genuinely intended by Lewis as certain interpreters believe, then I feel that their inclusion at that scene is superfluous.
Not to mention that The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was, judging from what I've read, intended as a narrative over and above an allegory, with interpretations such as the one I mentioned above applied retrospectively. To quote the letter I'm sure you're already aware of from December 1958:
That would imply that there is no need to slavishly replicate the Biblical events, simply hint at them. Having Aslan rise again from the dead is sufficient; there is no need for further re-enaction through links between certain characters if, as the above letter implies, the story is a children's narrative in which Lewis inserts a Christ-like lion in order to see what would unfold.
Therefore, I think Susan should have been at the battle, actively helping her brothers defeat their enemies.
Not to mention that The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was, judging from what I've read, intended as a narrative over and above an allegory, with interpretations such as the one I mentioned above applied retrospectively. To quote the letter I'm sure you're already aware of from December 1958:
CS Lewis said:
That would imply that there is no need to slavishly replicate the Biblical events, simply hint at them. Having Aslan rise again from the dead is sufficient; there is no need for further re-enaction through links between certain characters if, as the above letter implies, the story is a children's narrative in which Lewis inserts a Christ-like lion in order to see what would unfold.
Therefore, I think Susan should have been at the battle, actively helping her brothers defeat their enemies.
jillthevaliant said:
Absolute rubbish heap, Father Christmas is absolutely right. These are young female children, not women warriors.
Should women fight on the battlefield? That's no ones' decision but theirs.
But being a child and female? Definitely not. I agree with Father Christmas, it would be an ugly affair.
If you would like to see a Father Christmas who is worried about being sexist, just watch the movie, the lines where changed by Andrew Adamson because he felt that the Shrek movies where women empowering and he didn't what to change that for LWW.
-Austin
Last edited:
slideyfoot
New member
You don't have the same problem with young male children on a battlefield? Susan was roughly the same age as Peter, and considering girls tend to mature faster, she may well have been the same physical size or larger.CSLewisFan said:
This isn't a question about whether or not children should be there; Edmund is several years younger than Susan. It is a question of gender, and in particular, why a capable combatant with magic weaponry (that 'never misses', no less) is not part of the battle.
The Narnian air affects males different then females. Ed and Peter would become stronger and kingly. Susan and Lucy would be becoming more feminine and queenly.slideyfoot said:
Lucy and Susan had a role to play, just as important or more. If the troops had not been rallied from Jadis' castle, all would have been lost.
It does have to do with gender, not just size, equipment or age.
-Austin
slideyfoot
New member
Where is your evidence for this? That statement would seem to be contradicted by The Last Battle, in the case of Jill and Eustace as observed by King Tirian:CSLewisFan said:
The Last Battle said:
What exactly did Lucy and Susan do to rally the troops? What could they provide that Aslan couldn't? Unless you seriously think Lucy's handkerchief proferred to Giant Rumblebuffin seriously justifies her presence?
The Lion said:
Aslan certainly rallies the troops; Susan and Lucy do no such thing.
This whole discussion regarding the original comment in the book ("battles are ugly when women fight") is missing Lewis' whole point because it's ignoring Lewis' whole framework, especially that regarding the sexes and their meaning.
That's right: meaning. Not role. Not capabilities. Meaning.
slideyfoot, you spell out your presuppositions for the discussion in several places, particularly post #16 of this thread. There you essentially say that because Lewis was born in 1898, certain things would be expected of him, particularly what you refer to as "sexism". In short, you say Lewis was a product of his time, and we must allow for that.
This betrays a colossal ignorance of Lewis' work and outlook. Lewis was many things, but a product of his time was not one of them. Perhaps in 1920 he may have qualified as that, but by the time he was writing the Chronicles in the late 40's, he was anything but a product of his time. He was very consciously and deliberately a product of much earlier times. He was steeped in the classics of the ages and of several cultures: ancient Hebrew, Greek, Roman, European Medieval, and even Chinese and Egyptian. He knew the phenomena of men being products of their time and culture, and he fought tooth and nail against it. He educated himself in the works of many men in many times and places (his slim book The Abolition of Man is a superb summary of this education). Had Lewis been the product of his time, he probably would have looked much like Uncle Harold and Aunt Alberta. I may be the product of my time and culture, and you appear to be as well - but Lewis was not. To discount what he says because you're assuming that he is - well, as we say here in the States, you know how we spell "assume".
If you read some of Lewis' other works, especially Perelandra, That Hideous Strength,, and his piéce de résistance, Till We Have Faces, you see that Lewis deeply understood and appreciated the meaning of the sexes, and he wrote that meaning into his works, including Narnia. I realize this idea is so foreign to the modern mind that it will seem like Greek to most, but I'll try to make it accessible. For a real exploration of the topic, pick up Tom Howard' slim volume Chance or the Dance, which does a masterful job.
In line with the way most of humanity has thought throughout the ages, Lewis believed that the differences between men and women were more than just plumbing and hormones. He believed that the sexes reflected greater and deeper realities. Now, it doesn't matter if you believe this, the important thing is that Lewis believed it, and wrote from that framework. For instance, Susan and Lucy aren't just characters who happen to be female, they represent the Female in Lewis' literary framework. In fact, they represent even more, since they are maidens (virgins), and thus bear a much deeper burden of meaning. They are the only ones who get to mourn over Aslan's body, and they are the ones who ride him in His triumph. Like Mary at the tomb, they receive the Good News, and rejoice in it, for it is the meaning of the Female to receive (the female's role in sexual intercourse is only one aspect of this deeper and broader meaning.)
Also in line with most of humanity, Lewis understood that part of the meaning of the Male is to protect. It's what men do because it's what Males are. Thus, when Lucy and Susan were rejoicing at Aslan's resurrection and being carried on His back, Peter and Edmund were confronting the foe at Beruna. They were being beaten back, but they were striving (dare I say it?) manfully. Then Aslan Himself, the very Type of the Male in all the stories, arrives, and it's all over.
For a better picture of the roles of men and women as they reflect the meaning of Male and Female, consider these portions of other books:
These excerpts illustrate how Lewis - reflecting most of human history - understood that it was the role of the man to protect because the meaning of Woman was so important that it was to be protected at all costs - even the highest. This is one aspect from which to understand why battles are ugly when women fight - because if it gets to the point where the women are fighting, things are getting desperate. We saw this with Jill in Last Battle, who was only fighting because the Narnian's back was to the wall. We also saw it in Silver Chair, when the men were not only distraught but ashamed when they thought they'd sent Jill into peril while they stayed behind (fortunately, they hadn't.)
But the more foundational reason why battles are ugly when women fight is that it violates the meaning of the Female. Women are not only the foundation of civilization, they are its wellspring. They are the keepers of the hearth and the home. It is from the home that the men go out to fight and build and travel and plant and harvest. But the reason they do that is that they ultimately come home to the center. That's the reason for the fighting and building and traveling - to protect and provide for the most important thing of all. So when a woman abandons the center to go out and do those things, it is an ontological violation: she's violating her identity. This is why in classic mythology the Amazons were so feared. It was a culture that had abandoned the center, to the point of self-mutilation (it was rumored that the Amazons cut off their right breasts in order to better draw the bow.) If they went that far - what other terrible things might they have done?
This is one reason why Jadis strikes such a jarring note in the Chronicles - she is a woman who utterly abandons her identity as a woman. She strives to rule, not rest. She is no source of life, neither does she nurture - instead, she slaughters an entire world and then goes on to enslave another. She seeks to dominate, to have others under her - and you don't have to be a Fruedian to catch the significance there.
But Lewis' finest illustration of this principle is his protagonist Orual in Till We Have Faces. A woman who has cut herself off (somewhat literally) from her own feminine identity (personified by her sister), she takes the throne in a land unaccustomed to a queen. She fights with the sword and strives and builds and reforms and does all manner of manly things, but all the time is dying inside because she knows not herself. She has no identity, she is faceless (again, somewhat literally - she wears a veil all the time. Nobody ever sees her face.), and only at the end through great struggle is she reunited to herself. The book is stunning, and if you haven't read it, you don't really understand what Lewis is trying to say regarding the sexes and their meaning.
Now, I say all this knowing full well that all I'm probably going to get is get the usual modernist feminist claptrap thrown back at me. "Those are all just excuses to keep women in their place!" "You men are just trying to hoard all the opportunities for yourself!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I may even have my age thrown at me again, as if I, like Lewis, am some sort of reactionary fossil that just doesn't understand the modern times. But realize: I grew up in the 60s and 70s. It is my generation that brought you these modern times. If I were a creature of my times, I would not understand everything that I've just explained. It is only because I've sat at the feet of Lewis and others that I am not a creature of my time. It is only because I've been exposed to the wisdom of other times and places and cultures that I understand that the modernist feminist claptrap is just that: claptrap. It's a shrieking denial of the wisdom that men throughout history have understood, and it is only maintained by propoganda and a carefully revised account of history. It will fail in its time, for the truths of what Male and Female mean are bound into our very bones. Battles are ugly when women fight. Anyone can tell you that. Only we modern fools pull the wool of our materialist presupposition over our own eyes, stop our ears, and scream as loud as we can to try to keep the truth at bay.
That's right: meaning. Not role. Not capabilities. Meaning.
slideyfoot, you spell out your presuppositions for the discussion in several places, particularly post #16 of this thread. There you essentially say that because Lewis was born in 1898, certain things would be expected of him, particularly what you refer to as "sexism". In short, you say Lewis was a product of his time, and we must allow for that.
This betrays a colossal ignorance of Lewis' work and outlook. Lewis was many things, but a product of his time was not one of them. Perhaps in 1920 he may have qualified as that, but by the time he was writing the Chronicles in the late 40's, he was anything but a product of his time. He was very consciously and deliberately a product of much earlier times. He was steeped in the classics of the ages and of several cultures: ancient Hebrew, Greek, Roman, European Medieval, and even Chinese and Egyptian. He knew the phenomena of men being products of their time and culture, and he fought tooth and nail against it. He educated himself in the works of many men in many times and places (his slim book The Abolition of Man is a superb summary of this education). Had Lewis been the product of his time, he probably would have looked much like Uncle Harold and Aunt Alberta. I may be the product of my time and culture, and you appear to be as well - but Lewis was not. To discount what he says because you're assuming that he is - well, as we say here in the States, you know how we spell "assume".
If you read some of Lewis' other works, especially Perelandra, That Hideous Strength,, and his piéce de résistance, Till We Have Faces, you see that Lewis deeply understood and appreciated the meaning of the sexes, and he wrote that meaning into his works, including Narnia. I realize this idea is so foreign to the modern mind that it will seem like Greek to most, but I'll try to make it accessible. For a real exploration of the topic, pick up Tom Howard' slim volume Chance or the Dance, which does a masterful job.
In line with the way most of humanity has thought throughout the ages, Lewis believed that the differences between men and women were more than just plumbing and hormones. He believed that the sexes reflected greater and deeper realities. Now, it doesn't matter if you believe this, the important thing is that Lewis believed it, and wrote from that framework. For instance, Susan and Lucy aren't just characters who happen to be female, they represent the Female in Lewis' literary framework. In fact, they represent even more, since they are maidens (virgins), and thus bear a much deeper burden of meaning. They are the only ones who get to mourn over Aslan's body, and they are the ones who ride him in His triumph. Like Mary at the tomb, they receive the Good News, and rejoice in it, for it is the meaning of the Female to receive (the female's role in sexual intercourse is only one aspect of this deeper and broader meaning.)
Also in line with most of humanity, Lewis understood that part of the meaning of the Male is to protect. It's what men do because it's what Males are. Thus, when Lucy and Susan were rejoicing at Aslan's resurrection and being carried on His back, Peter and Edmund were confronting the foe at Beruna. They were being beaten back, but they were striving (dare I say it?) manfully. Then Aslan Himself, the very Type of the Male in all the stories, arrives, and it's all over.
For a better picture of the roles of men and women as they reflect the meaning of Male and Female, consider these portions of other books:
These excerpts illustrate how Lewis - reflecting most of human history - understood that it was the role of the man to protect because the meaning of Woman was so important that it was to be protected at all costs - even the highest. This is one aspect from which to understand why battles are ugly when women fight - because if it gets to the point where the women are fighting, things are getting desperate. We saw this with Jill in Last Battle, who was only fighting because the Narnian's back was to the wall. We also saw it in Silver Chair, when the men were not only distraught but ashamed when they thought they'd sent Jill into peril while they stayed behind (fortunately, they hadn't.)
But the more foundational reason why battles are ugly when women fight is that it violates the meaning of the Female. Women are not only the foundation of civilization, they are its wellspring. They are the keepers of the hearth and the home. It is from the home that the men go out to fight and build and travel and plant and harvest. But the reason they do that is that they ultimately come home to the center. That's the reason for the fighting and building and traveling - to protect and provide for the most important thing of all. So when a woman abandons the center to go out and do those things, it is an ontological violation: she's violating her identity. This is why in classic mythology the Amazons were so feared. It was a culture that had abandoned the center, to the point of self-mutilation (it was rumored that the Amazons cut off their right breasts in order to better draw the bow.) If they went that far - what other terrible things might they have done?
This is one reason why Jadis strikes such a jarring note in the Chronicles - she is a woman who utterly abandons her identity as a woman. She strives to rule, not rest. She is no source of life, neither does she nurture - instead, she slaughters an entire world and then goes on to enslave another. She seeks to dominate, to have others under her - and you don't have to be a Fruedian to catch the significance there.
But Lewis' finest illustration of this principle is his protagonist Orual in Till We Have Faces. A woman who has cut herself off (somewhat literally) from her own feminine identity (personified by her sister), she takes the throne in a land unaccustomed to a queen. She fights with the sword and strives and builds and reforms and does all manner of manly things, but all the time is dying inside because she knows not herself. She has no identity, she is faceless (again, somewhat literally - she wears a veil all the time. Nobody ever sees her face.), and only at the end through great struggle is she reunited to herself. The book is stunning, and if you haven't read it, you don't really understand what Lewis is trying to say regarding the sexes and their meaning.
Now, I say all this knowing full well that all I'm probably going to get is get the usual modernist feminist claptrap thrown back at me. "Those are all just excuses to keep women in their place!" "You men are just trying to hoard all the opportunities for yourself!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I may even have my age thrown at me again, as if I, like Lewis, am some sort of reactionary fossil that just doesn't understand the modern times. But realize: I grew up in the 60s and 70s. It is my generation that brought you these modern times. If I were a creature of my times, I would not understand everything that I've just explained. It is only because I've sat at the feet of Lewis and others that I am not a creature of my time. It is only because I've been exposed to the wisdom of other times and places and cultures that I understand that the modernist feminist claptrap is just that: claptrap. It's a shrieking denial of the wisdom that men throughout history have understood, and it is only maintained by propoganda and a carefully revised account of history. It will fail in its time, for the truths of what Male and Female mean are bound into our very bones. Battles are ugly when women fight. Anyone can tell you that. Only we modern fools pull the wool of our materialist presupposition over our own eyes, stop our ears, and scream as loud as we can to try to keep the truth at bay.
Last edited:
I have to agree with PoTW on this one -- you kids may be too young to understand it all just now, and it sounds to you like Lewis is saying girls aren't good enough to fight. In fact, he is saying girls are a blame sight too good to be risked in a fight. As PoTW said, the reason battles are ugly when women fight, from the perspective of Lewis, Tolkien and other classicists, is that it must mean things have gone so desperately wrong that there is no one else to fight ... a sure tragedy.
Think of Dernhelm/Eowyn in LOTR. Aragorn tried to tell her that she was too precious for battle, and she courted death anyway. She played her valiant part! But by the end of the story (I hope you have read the books), she found her true fulfillment and the real joy of her life in marriage and family. This is not saying that women cannot be and do anything they want to be and do -- it is saying that their bodies carry the only hope of the future and must be protected.
Think of Dernhelm/Eowyn in LOTR. Aragorn tried to tell her that she was too precious for battle, and she courted death anyway. She played her valiant part! But by the end of the story (I hope you have read the books), she found her true fulfillment and the real joy of her life in marriage and family. This is not saying that women cannot be and do anything they want to be and do -- it is saying that their bodies carry the only hope of the future and must be protected.
Gryphon
New member
hey now, im a girl and i can say, Santa was honorable about that. He didnt want the girls to fight, even though they did later, i think he was right, you dont want to be on a battle field trust me, watching people die is not fun and men are known for protecting women, why wont you let them be honorable and stop fussing that theyr'e sexist when they want to protect you from harm? Let them be gentlemen if they want to be, we have few enough of those as it is.
S
Sir_Peter_Wolfsbane
Guest
Delightfully insightful, even though I'm sure you've opened yourself up for sparring rounds. 
And even though I know my place, I still would go help my brothers out if they needed it. Call it the animus in me.
And even though I know my place, I still would go help my brothers out if they needed it. Call it the animus in me.
Kitanna
New member
Reading what PoTW has said, it made me rethink my position. I agree with you. However, because of it's wording, it still looks sexist, regardless of if it is or not. Of course that's me just looking at it at face value. Afterall, until my friend read the book and pointed it out I had never given a second thought to it. Now that's it's been mentioned, though, it's hard to ignore. It's not the meaning of the statement for me, so much as the wording used...
But thinking further on the subject Lucy and Susan witnessed a much greater event then the battle and that was Aslan coming back due to the Deeper Magic.
But thinking further on the subject Lucy and Susan witnessed a much greater event then the battle and that was Aslan coming back due to the Deeper Magic.
jillthevaliant
New member
Gryphon said:
ok, that's really nice that father christmas wanted to protect the girls, but it's really not for him to decide. yes, he's "giving a suggestion", but still. it's up to the girls to decide.
did it ever occur to anyone that maybe (the) girls (whether it's lucy and susan or just women in general) don't want to be protected by men all the time? ok, yes, it might be the male "responsibility" to protect the female, but they might not want to rely on the men to take care of them and fight for them and die for them. yes, battle is an ugly affair, but still. that doesn't stop women today from fighting in iraq or pakistan (and i'm not saying that that's the entire reason that women join the army).
Your point of departure is, "given that there's no deep difference between men and women, then why can't women do what they like..."
The difference between your point of view and Lewis' - and he was just reflecting classic thinking - is that point of departure. The classic view is more like, "given that male and female are but earthly reflections of far deeper realities woven into the very fabric of the universe, then in what way should our actions align with and enhance the realities we are reflecting?"
Seriously, the real issue begins much further back than whether women want to be protected by men. The real issue is that the modern mind tries to deny that anything means more than what presents itself to the eye. Remember the dialog between Eustace and Ramandu? "In our world, stars are great flaming balls of gas." "Even in your world, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of." You and I, thoroughly steeped in modern thinking, are accustomed to thinking of things as being just what they are, and no more. Yet even that does not sit well - for instance, we object to flag burning (at least I do), because there's a lot more there than just a piece of cloth combusting. The piece of cloth means something, and so does the burning.
The example of Eowyn is a superb one. She even offered very similar arguments: "I don't want to be sent to the hills to wait! I want to ride out and strike a blow against the enemy!" And even when she rode (in disobedience, I might add), she denied her identity as a living woman, riding forth to die disguised as a man. Sure, she did great things on the Pellenor Fields, and maybe she had to do them given the depth of the perversion that needed to be dealt with, but she was denying her identity. Faramir's greatest gift to her wasn't his hand in marriage or his princedom, but giving her back her identity as a woman and a healer. Her identity was lost to her until he gave it back.
The difference between your point of view and Lewis' - and he was just reflecting classic thinking - is that point of departure. The classic view is more like, "given that male and female are but earthly reflections of far deeper realities woven into the very fabric of the universe, then in what way should our actions align with and enhance the realities we are reflecting?"
Seriously, the real issue begins much further back than whether women want to be protected by men. The real issue is that the modern mind tries to deny that anything means more than what presents itself to the eye. Remember the dialog between Eustace and Ramandu? "In our world, stars are great flaming balls of gas." "Even in your world, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of." You and I, thoroughly steeped in modern thinking, are accustomed to thinking of things as being just what they are, and no more. Yet even that does not sit well - for instance, we object to flag burning (at least I do), because there's a lot more there than just a piece of cloth combusting. The piece of cloth means something, and so does the burning.
The example of Eowyn is a superb one. She even offered very similar arguments: "I don't want to be sent to the hills to wait! I want to ride out and strike a blow against the enemy!" And even when she rode (in disobedience, I might add), she denied her identity as a living woman, riding forth to die disguised as a man. Sure, she did great things on the Pellenor Fields, and maybe she had to do them given the depth of the perversion that needed to be dealt with, but she was denying her identity. Faramir's greatest gift to her wasn't his hand in marriage or his princedom, but giving her back her identity as a woman and a healer. Her identity was lost to her until he gave it back.
Well said, PoTW. This may be a concept too tough for the kids to grasp: that being feminine, a woman, is of cosmic importance -- just as being masculine, a male is. These are genders that go beyond what we see on earth and correspond to something eternal God devised. Whether I, personally desire that this not be so in my case (or Eowyn in her case), makes no difference, for it is how God ordained it.
The military of the USA and Great Britain, I think, rightly recognize that it is nearly instinctual for a man to protect a woman, and this is one reason millitary leadership would prefer no women on the battle field: not because of the risk to the women, but because the men cannot be effective fighters if their attention is divided by an instinct to protect their (female) fellow soldiers.
No, it is not for Father Christmas to decide whether or not the young ladies wanted to be protected, but he knew well enough that the instincts of their brothers would be to protect them. He knew the young princes would need all their wits to fight their enemies -- perhaps this is another reason the girls were kept out of the battle: to allow the boys their best opportunity for victory.
The military of the USA and Great Britain, I think, rightly recognize that it is nearly instinctual for a man to protect a woman, and this is one reason millitary leadership would prefer no women on the battle field: not because of the risk to the women, but because the men cannot be effective fighters if their attention is divided by an instinct to protect their (female) fellow soldiers.
No, it is not for Father Christmas to decide whether or not the young ladies wanted to be protected, but he knew well enough that the instincts of their brothers would be to protect them. He knew the young princes would need all their wits to fight their enemies -- perhaps this is another reason the girls were kept out of the battle: to allow the boys their best opportunity for victory.
slideyfoot
New member
Ah, I was hoping you would respond, Prince; intelligent and carefully thought out as I expected, Inkspot providing some further reasonable argument. I thank you for the alternate perspective; there is no point in holding an opinion if it isn't challenged. It seems - and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding - that you are taking the line that women are the childbearers, and that this role as the giver of life is a sacred one and must therefore be protected at all costs? The female 'identity' for you (and as you argue, for Lewis) is one of gentle motherhood, and as far as I'm aware, that would fit well with Christian ideology. I'm mainly thinking of this point you made:
However, as I'm sure you expect, I don't agree, as I do indeed think that this perception of women as delicate treasures made of precious glass easily broken is patronising sexism at it worst, restricting half the population of the planet to the role of either mother or virgin, over which they have no choice. Either a mother at home looking after children and doing housework, or a child being looked after by a mother. No scope for women to go out and earn a wage (while I wholeheartedly agree than being a mother is more than a full-time job, it is not what every women wants to do with her life, or indeed can - single mothers, for example, must earn a living), to become soldiers, labourers, plumbers, scientists, or indeed to make the choice to have no children. I also accept that I have infinitely less knowledge than many people on this forum in regards to the specific thinking of Lewis in other sources, such as his work as a Christian apologist, or indeed works of fiction outside of Narnia. That leaves me with looking at the text of the book in question; The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. First, the point of controversy:
"I do not mean you to fight in the battle". In other words, I don't want you to fight in the battle. Worse still, despite Lucy's desire to stand by her brothers and fight for what she believes in, "That is not the point...battles are ugly when women fight". In other words, it doesn't matter what women want, the man is always right; do as you're told and stick to the role I, the man, have given you. Even in giving the weapons, there is the immediate caveat that they should only be used in 'great need'. Far better, from the male perspective here, is that the women either cry out for help so her big strong man can come rescue the damsel, or she can care for said big strong man if he gets injured in the process.
This, I feel, is ridiculous. Two potential combatants, armed and ready to fight (Lucy explicitly says so), one with a weapon that does not easily miss. Any military leader would be insane to give up such an asset. Instead, the women are carefully separated from the battle by the author, initially against Aslan's wishes. When he sees Lucy and Susan approach, he says (p134) "Oh, children, children, why are you following me?", then has to think it over before letting them follow "Well - ", said Aslan, and seemed to be thinking. Then he said, "I should be glad of company tonight. Yes, you may come, if you will promise to stop when I tell you, and after that leave me to go on alone."
Susan and Lucy ignore this instruction, rushing to Aslan's side on the Stone Table, where they spend the next few pages sobbing. Aslan, upon reappearing, is then used as a plot device to get the women away from the battle. Rather than immediately rushing to the castle to free up further troops, he has to carry the weight of the two girls. Not that Aslan would have any trouble carrying them, but why bother? Why should they go along to the castle with him? What purpose does it serve?
For the entirety of the next scene, the women 'do' three things; comment on the situation, find Mr Tumnus, give Giant Rumblebuffin a handkerchief. Finding Mr Tumnus is not something they are actually needed for - as Aslan says, "Look alive, everyone!"; having reverted stone to flesh, he has a whole army to do the searching. Now, I can accept that having someone to comment on the situation, from a narrative point of view, is actually an important one. The reader needs a sympathetic eye to look through - this could be provided by a number of sources, but here it is provided by Lucy. Even if we allow for this, why is Susan there? Her one line is about Giant Rumblebuffin 'being safe'; again, the author is merely reminding us that she is there. Susan is not actually required, and is quite obviously only there because the author does not want her to be anywhere near the battle. Upon leaving the castle, the two girls are once again merely dead weight - Aslan rallies the troops, the Giant knocks in the door, a sheepdog helps with organisation.
To return to the battle. Peter, roughly the same build as Susan, is holding off a warrior with around a millennia of experience. Edmund, considerably younger and smaller than Susan, has managed to fight his way through three ogres, as Peter relates on p162. Three ogres, large and powerful, would be an impressive feat for a group of fully-grown men. If Edmund, by far the junior of Susan, (indeed, only a year older than Lucy, according to p44) could accomplish this, imagine what Susan could do with a magic bow that never misses? Why isn't she there? Because she's a woman, who isn't allowed to prove herself in combat; she is forced by a patriarchal culture to weep, get rescued, or be 'tall and gracious' as her older self is described on p166. Her title is Susan the Gentle, but might as well have been Susan the Inactive, or Susan the Female Prop. Even the offers of marriage aren't accepted, because she isn't deemed old enough to be 'mother', so has to stay 'maiden'.
If I ever had children, this is not a message I would want my daughter to take on board. What the book is telling her is that she needs to go find herself a nice young man, marry him, then cook his food, stay at home and have babies. Some women might be happy with that, and if they truly are, good for them. But to only have one option in life, while another individual of the exact same age, capability, intellect etc has thousands of options purely because they have something else between their legs is an utterly abhorrent - not to mention seriously anachronistic - concept.
However, having said all that, I don't think Lewis was all that terrible considering his time period. Unlike many critics who would lacerate Narnia for sexism, I also happen to enjoy the world he created, albeit as an adult I'm made painfully aware of the flaws. Lewis does try to produce more appealing female characters after his first instalment of Narnia – Jadis (much more imposing in The Magicians Nephew), Aravis, even Polly Plumber. His sexism is not so pervasive that it can't be removed by the deletion of a few lines of dialogue, as occurred in the film, and additions to the women’s role, such as Susan’s slaying of the dwarf. Cosmic or not, I’m glad that Narnia is finally being adapted in a way that allows the engaging narrative to shake off restrictive patriarchal attitudes.
PrinceoftheWest said:
However, as I'm sure you expect, I don't agree, as I do indeed think that this perception of women as delicate treasures made of precious glass easily broken is patronising sexism at it worst, restricting half the population of the planet to the role of either mother or virgin, over which they have no choice. Either a mother at home looking after children and doing housework, or a child being looked after by a mother. No scope for women to go out and earn a wage (while I wholeheartedly agree than being a mother is more than a full-time job, it is not what every women wants to do with her life, or indeed can - single mothers, for example, must earn a living), to become soldiers, labourers, plumbers, scientists, or indeed to make the choice to have no children. I also accept that I have infinitely less knowledge than many people on this forum in regards to the specific thinking of Lewis in other sources, such as his work as a Christian apologist, or indeed works of fiction outside of Narnia. That leaves me with looking at the text of the book in question; The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. First, the point of controversy:
The Lion said:
"I do not mean you to fight in the battle". In other words, I don't want you to fight in the battle. Worse still, despite Lucy's desire to stand by her brothers and fight for what she believes in, "That is not the point...battles are ugly when women fight". In other words, it doesn't matter what women want, the man is always right; do as you're told and stick to the role I, the man, have given you. Even in giving the weapons, there is the immediate caveat that they should only be used in 'great need'. Far better, from the male perspective here, is that the women either cry out for help so her big strong man can come rescue the damsel, or she can care for said big strong man if he gets injured in the process.
This, I feel, is ridiculous. Two potential combatants, armed and ready to fight (Lucy explicitly says so), one with a weapon that does not easily miss. Any military leader would be insane to give up such an asset. Instead, the women are carefully separated from the battle by the author, initially against Aslan's wishes. When he sees Lucy and Susan approach, he says (p134) "Oh, children, children, why are you following me?", then has to think it over before letting them follow "Well - ", said Aslan, and seemed to be thinking. Then he said, "I should be glad of company tonight. Yes, you may come, if you will promise to stop when I tell you, and after that leave me to go on alone."
Susan and Lucy ignore this instruction, rushing to Aslan's side on the Stone Table, where they spend the next few pages sobbing. Aslan, upon reappearing, is then used as a plot device to get the women away from the battle. Rather than immediately rushing to the castle to free up further troops, he has to carry the weight of the two girls. Not that Aslan would have any trouble carrying them, but why bother? Why should they go along to the castle with him? What purpose does it serve?
For the entirety of the next scene, the women 'do' three things; comment on the situation, find Mr Tumnus, give Giant Rumblebuffin a handkerchief. Finding Mr Tumnus is not something they are actually needed for - as Aslan says, "Look alive, everyone!"; having reverted stone to flesh, he has a whole army to do the searching. Now, I can accept that having someone to comment on the situation, from a narrative point of view, is actually an important one. The reader needs a sympathetic eye to look through - this could be provided by a number of sources, but here it is provided by Lucy. Even if we allow for this, why is Susan there? Her one line is about Giant Rumblebuffin 'being safe'; again, the author is merely reminding us that she is there. Susan is not actually required, and is quite obviously only there because the author does not want her to be anywhere near the battle. Upon leaving the castle, the two girls are once again merely dead weight - Aslan rallies the troops, the Giant knocks in the door, a sheepdog helps with organisation.
To return to the battle. Peter, roughly the same build as Susan, is holding off a warrior with around a millennia of experience. Edmund, considerably younger and smaller than Susan, has managed to fight his way through three ogres, as Peter relates on p162. Three ogres, large and powerful, would be an impressive feat for a group of fully-grown men. If Edmund, by far the junior of Susan, (indeed, only a year older than Lucy, according to p44) could accomplish this, imagine what Susan could do with a magic bow that never misses? Why isn't she there? Because she's a woman, who isn't allowed to prove herself in combat; she is forced by a patriarchal culture to weep, get rescued, or be 'tall and gracious' as her older self is described on p166. Her title is Susan the Gentle, but might as well have been Susan the Inactive, or Susan the Female Prop. Even the offers of marriage aren't accepted, because she isn't deemed old enough to be 'mother', so has to stay 'maiden'.
If I ever had children, this is not a message I would want my daughter to take on board. What the book is telling her is that she needs to go find herself a nice young man, marry him, then cook his food, stay at home and have babies. Some women might be happy with that, and if they truly are, good for them. But to only have one option in life, while another individual of the exact same age, capability, intellect etc has thousands of options purely because they have something else between their legs is an utterly abhorrent - not to mention seriously anachronistic - concept.
However, having said all that, I don't think Lewis was all that terrible considering his time period. Unlike many critics who would lacerate Narnia for sexism, I also happen to enjoy the world he created, albeit as an adult I'm made painfully aware of the flaws. Lewis does try to produce more appealing female characters after his first instalment of Narnia – Jadis (much more imposing in The Magicians Nephew), Aravis, even Polly Plumber. His sexism is not so pervasive that it can't be removed by the deletion of a few lines of dialogue, as occurred in the film, and additions to the women’s role, such as Susan’s slaying of the dwarf. Cosmic or not, I’m glad that Narnia is finally being adapted in a way that allows the engaging narrative to shake off restrictive patriarchal attitudes.