D
Dora_the_explora
Guest
I never really thought about it but He kind of seemed sexist. I don't really know if he is or not because he is in a way but he's not in a way.
Queens may fight - Girls may not 1940's vs 2000's
- Thread starter jillthevaliant
- Start date
Thank you both for your comments, especially your carefully considered ones, slideyfoot. As you may expect, I have some response, but work summons me at the moment, and it may be later today or tomorrow before I have a chance to respond. In the meantime, God bless you!
I don't think Lewis is advocating the idea that women have only two options in life: mother or virgin.
I think he is advocating the idea that women should be protected from war because they are the only ones who can have babies, which is the notion of classicists of his type, and a good notion in my estimation.
How are you getting from "protect women from war" to "women only have two options in life" in this text?
As for why the girls are romping with Aslan while the boys are fighting: if you are a Christ follower, ask yourself whether you would rather be engaged in the ongoing, brutal battle of good vs. evil or experiencing ultimate joy in the presence of the Savior. Susan and Lucy know that because Aslan is alive, all will be as it should be -- there is no reason for them to rush back to the battle when he has invited them to remain in his presence.
Father Christmas doesn't tell the girls, "You can't fight in a battle." He tells them he does not mean for them to: his best hope is that things will never get so bad that they will be forced to fight. Surely the fact that he gives them weapons means he does not exactly think of them as the "delicate treasures made of glass easily broken" that you describe ...
I think he is advocating the idea that women should be protected from war because they are the only ones who can have babies, which is the notion of classicists of his type, and a good notion in my estimation.
How are you getting from "protect women from war" to "women only have two options in life" in this text?
As for why the girls are romping with Aslan while the boys are fighting: if you are a Christ follower, ask yourself whether you would rather be engaged in the ongoing, brutal battle of good vs. evil or experiencing ultimate joy in the presence of the Savior. Susan and Lucy know that because Aslan is alive, all will be as it should be -- there is no reason for them to rush back to the battle when he has invited them to remain in his presence.
Father Christmas doesn't tell the girls, "You can't fight in a battle." He tells them he does not mean for them to: his best hope is that things will never get so bad that they will be forced to fight. Surely the fact that he gives them weapons means he does not exactly think of them as the "delicate treasures made of glass easily broken" that you describe ...
You are getting all this from the idea that girls shouldn't fight in battles?Slideyfoot said:
Agreed -- but how are you getting this from LWW? The girls have as exciting and fulfilling lives as the boys, and no one gets married ... so I am not sure where you are getting this idea?
Last edited:
slideyfoot
New member
That is more in response to PrinceoftheWest's comments about Lewis:Inkspot said:
I admit its slightly tangential from a purely textual discussion on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, but assuming PotW is right that Lucy and Susan represent 'the Female' (and it seems Prince is well informed on Lewis), I thought it a point worth addressing. Additionally, in the latter chapters of the text, Lucy and Susan are very much cast as 'maidens'. First Susan is a damsel in distress, then they spend several pages sobbing; nothing wrong with emotion, but it isn't exactly an inspiring image, particularly when you contrast it with the pro-active roles given to the men. The completely superfluous presence of the two girls at the castle further emphasises this - as I discussed, I see no purpose in their being there (the only meaningful role played is that of a sympathetic observer, and even if I accept that, only one set of eyes are required).
I look forward to Prince's promised response to my earlier points; no doubt it will be as informative and interesting as the previous perspective PotW provided.
Inkspot said:
I disagree, as I think he does tell them they can't fight. That is why I quoted this section:
Father Christmas is essentially saying that it doesn't matter what women want, they have to do what men tell them. His response to Lucy's courage is to verbally pat her on the head and say "thats nice dear, now run along and play with your toys". Edmund is a mere year older than Lucy, yet he does not suffer similarly patronising treatment; surely if the battle is not meant for Lucy, it should not be meant for a small child like Edmund either? More glaring is Susan's omission, as she is probably - as I discussed - of a similar build to Peter, and certainly larger than Edmund, not to mention has a magical bow that never misses.
Inkspot said:
Not really, because he doesn't intend the girls to actually use them. As I describe in my post, the plot carefully takes Lucy and Susan as far away from the battle as possible (at least until Aslan is there with them to end it before they can get involved). On top of that, the weapons they receive are accompanied by a horn to bring "help of some kind", implying that even if they did get into a situation where they might have to defend themselves, they aren't capable of doing so properly and require the aid of men. That is exactly what occurs in the one instance when Susan is attacked; the plot sends her up a tree waiting for her brother to respond to the horn, instead of despatching the wolf herself. This also shows up the inherent problem in giving someone a long-range weapon for self-defence - a bow is far better at making the first strike, because your enemy needs to be some distance away. Lucy's dagger is given to her with the understanding that its actually her restorative potion that Father Christmas expects her to use; Lucy's role will be to treat the wounded who fought to protect her, rather than having the chance to fight and protect herself.
It doesn't sound like it to me. Having spent the battle sobbing and acting as a dead weight to be carried round by lions and horses, Susan has the thrill of being "tall and gracious". Peter, on the other hand, is a "great warrior", while Edmund is "great in council and judgement". What do Susan and Lucy get to be great in? Susan is apparently attractive, but never marries, while Lucy is merely "gay and golden-haired", which again brings her suitors ("all princes in those parts desired her to be their Queen") which again she seems to refuse. So, they look nice, but thats it; not what I'd call 'exciting and fulfilling', particularly in comparison with their brothers.Inkspot said:
LOL, have you read all the books? Susan shows her stuff as an archer in Prince Caspian, and when the children in that book discover where they are (in the ruins of Cair Paravel, thousands of years after their Golden Age), all are swept up in nostalgia for the life they remember as kings and queens in Narnia, apparently the girls were as joyful there as the boys. Do you think if someone does not become a great warrior or a wise judge that they find no fulfillment in life? Many men and women become neither, and yet their lives are meaningfully and happily spent.
I take it that you are not a follower of Christ, since you didn't address my point about the joy Susan and Lucy experienced simply being in the presence of Aslan being worth far more, and far more enjoyable, than fighting a losing battle alongside their brothers? They were no more "dead weight" being carried by Aslan than we will some day be "dead weight" in the arms of the Savior in heaven -- his presence was all their joy. Would they have willingly chosen, instead of being witness to his glorious resurrection and united with him that day, rather to be proving their stuff on the battle field? Perhaps, if you are not a follower of Christ, this makes no sense to you, and you cannot imagine a Being whose very presence would be light and joy to you. For me, I believe simply being with Christ -- and for the kids I believe simply being with Aslan -- a much greater joy than any battle field experience could give, than any experience will ever give.
If you cannot imagine such a thing, if you cannot feel the pleasure of the girls in Lewis' description in the book, I cannot, perhaps, very well explain it. He seems to think this romp with Aslan was one of the best experiences anyone had in the whole book. And I think for us believers, united with Christ, it will be.
As for Susan's being given a horn ... it was not because she was a "mere girl" that she received it: it is later used by Cornelius and Caspian in Prince Caspian, both males. It was quite a useful gift for anyone who might ever encounter trouble.
After Susan plays the horn and Peter slays the wolf threatening his sisters, he sobs right along with the girls -- and the book informs us that no one thinks any the less of you for that in Narnia. You must not think because Lewis allows the girls to shed some tears that they are weak -- why should they not cry over the death of Aslan? In Magicians Nephew, it is Diggory, a boy, who cries great tears over his mother ... tears in themselves aren't reserved for girls and shouldn't be taken as a sign of weakness or inability.
Edmund, like Susan and Lucy up the tree, must be rescued from peril by others -- he is not able to dispatch his enemies on his own. But he is not emasculated because of this, and Lewis was not indicating bad boys are weak by not allowing Ed to deal with his captors on his own -- any more than he meant Susan and Lucy were weak or breakable by allowing Peter to rescue them. It's just how the story moves along: Susan and Lucy are attacked by a wolf, and Peter saves them, then they all cry.
As for Lucy's receiving the vial of healing oil, that was the most useful gift of all. How much more difficult it is to restore life and health than to take it away on the battle field! If she received such a gift on account of her being a girl, then everyone should wish to be a girl and receive the same. Healing is not so particularly feminine: it is a great gift. Remember in ROTK, "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer." Aragorn, a man among men has such a gift -- surely that doesn't reflect weakness or femininity.
You seem convinced that if Father Christmas told the girls not to be on the frontlines, that he was somehow dooming them to dull lives. But it does not seem to me that they had dull lives, ever, after coming to Narnia. If they did, the books would have been very dull, which to me they are not. There is nothing wrong with Susan's being gracious -- I hope I may be remembered in much the same vein ...
Do you like the stories at all, and if so, why? I am just curious, as they seem to offend you ...
I take it that you are not a follower of Christ, since you didn't address my point about the joy Susan and Lucy experienced simply being in the presence of Aslan being worth far more, and far more enjoyable, than fighting a losing battle alongside their brothers? They were no more "dead weight" being carried by Aslan than we will some day be "dead weight" in the arms of the Savior in heaven -- his presence was all their joy. Would they have willingly chosen, instead of being witness to his glorious resurrection and united with him that day, rather to be proving their stuff on the battle field? Perhaps, if you are not a follower of Christ, this makes no sense to you, and you cannot imagine a Being whose very presence would be light and joy to you. For me, I believe simply being with Christ -- and for the kids I believe simply being with Aslan -- a much greater joy than any battle field experience could give, than any experience will ever give.
If you cannot imagine such a thing, if you cannot feel the pleasure of the girls in Lewis' description in the book, I cannot, perhaps, very well explain it. He seems to think this romp with Aslan was one of the best experiences anyone had in the whole book. And I think for us believers, united with Christ, it will be.
As for Susan's being given a horn ... it was not because she was a "mere girl" that she received it: it is later used by Cornelius and Caspian in Prince Caspian, both males. It was quite a useful gift for anyone who might ever encounter trouble.
After Susan plays the horn and Peter slays the wolf threatening his sisters, he sobs right along with the girls -- and the book informs us that no one thinks any the less of you for that in Narnia. You must not think because Lewis allows the girls to shed some tears that they are weak -- why should they not cry over the death of Aslan? In Magicians Nephew, it is Diggory, a boy, who cries great tears over his mother ... tears in themselves aren't reserved for girls and shouldn't be taken as a sign of weakness or inability.
Edmund, like Susan and Lucy up the tree, must be rescued from peril by others -- he is not able to dispatch his enemies on his own. But he is not emasculated because of this, and Lewis was not indicating bad boys are weak by not allowing Ed to deal with his captors on his own -- any more than he meant Susan and Lucy were weak or breakable by allowing Peter to rescue them. It's just how the story moves along: Susan and Lucy are attacked by a wolf, and Peter saves them, then they all cry.
As for Lucy's receiving the vial of healing oil, that was the most useful gift of all. How much more difficult it is to restore life and health than to take it away on the battle field! If she received such a gift on account of her being a girl, then everyone should wish to be a girl and receive the same. Healing is not so particularly feminine: it is a great gift. Remember in ROTK, "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer." Aragorn, a man among men has such a gift -- surely that doesn't reflect weakness or femininity.
You seem convinced that if Father Christmas told the girls not to be on the frontlines, that he was somehow dooming them to dull lives. But it does not seem to me that they had dull lives, ever, after coming to Narnia. If they did, the books would have been very dull, which to me they are not. There is nothing wrong with Susan's being gracious -- I hope I may be remembered in much the same vein ...
Do you like the stories at all, and if so, why? I am just curious, as they seem to offend you ...
jillthevaliant
New member
i don't necessarily think that lewis is sexist and i'm not saying either that all of the male characters are, either. of course, there are going to be some sexist ideas of other characters, but who doesn't have SOME of those ideas? the books are lovely and i won't stop reading them just because of some comments made. it's just the contrast of ideas and morals and beliefs from then and today.
Gryphon
New member
Saying that men shouldnt fight for and even possibly die for us is like telling a woman not to provide and take care of children for her husband. It's something that comes naturally its an instinct and all men in their right minds have it, you cant stop men from trying to protect women. See, this is why i dont like the feminist mindset, men try to do something that they feel is right and feminists all over get cranky bacause they "underestimate" women and are automatically sexist. Oh yeah, Father Christmas was SO sexist, thats why he gave Susan a bow and arrow and Lucy a dagger, so that they would completely rely on men to handle it because he didnt expect them to take care of themselves. He gave them weapons cause he didnt think they could do it. yeah right...jillthevaliant said:
Last edited:
jillthevaliant
New member
i'm not telling men to stop protecting women-GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT TO!!! i'm just saying that maybe not all women want to be guarded as though they're china waiting to fall apart the second that someone even touches them.Gryphon said:
slideyfoot
New member
gryphon said:
Did you read my earlier point? He gave them weapons which he had no intention they would actually use (at least not in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - see comments below). Susan's bow, as I mentioned earlier, is entirely useless for self-defence, as it is an offensive weapon - your target needs to be at a distance. However, she is whisked away from the battle, despite this magic weapon that never misses. The plot makes Peter and Edmund the only combatants, even though Susan is put in a combat situation; she gets call for help then scamper up a tree rather than shooting the wolf (remember, her bow is enchanted and doesn't miss) when it was approaching. If Peter is capable of the bravery required to dispatch a wolf, even though he was demonstrably afraid, why not Susan?
inkspot said:
I have read the entire series, several times. Apologies - I thought we were just discussing The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, as the topic heading is 'father christmas' in reference to his words to Lucy and Susan in that specific book? If you bring in the rest of the series, then thats a different issue, with different problems. But there is no need to get into the whole Susan being dumped during The Last Battle, which would need to be discussed in a series-wide debate on sexism. That is a whole other thread, which I'd rather not get into on this one; further preparation would be required, as I discuss below.
Inkspot said:
Not what I meant - referring specifically to the short section at the end of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, all that is mentioned about the girls is that they grew up to be attractive. Which is in no way exciting or fulfilling. As with my response to your earlier point, if we are extending the question beyond that one book, then a lot more needs to be discussed. We can do that if you like, but it will take me a while to gather up all the necessary quotes from each book.
Inkspot said:
Yes - as I've stated on the forum a few times now, I'm an atheist. Are you therefore saying you feel that this is a book purely for Christians and would also support the idea that everything in the book is part of one long Christian allegory, rather than being first and foremost a fantastical narrative which happens to be influenced by certain aspects of Christian iconography?
Inksport said:
Again, I'm only referring to this one book, due to the thread title.
Inkspot said:
Its not that she cries - there is nothing wrong with showing emotion. It is that the book does not permit her to defend herself; the implication is that only a man can deal with the wolf, the woman is merely there to be rescued. Why not have Edmund and Lucy crying over Aslan, while Susan and Peter, the eldest, strongest and largest of the children, fight in the battle?
Edmund redeems himself later in the battle, something Susan and Lucy are not allowed to do (Lucy uses a potion to heal others, which is a valuable act, but due to the potion, not Lucy - anyone else could have used it just as easily); that is the whole point of Peter's comment:
The Lion said:
Inkspot said:
I agree healing is important, and your point would be valid if, say, she had performed surgery on the wounded. But how much effort does it take to "pour a few drops" from a bottle? This does not display any skill on her part, particularly when compared to the hugely impressive feat Edmund achieves; singlehandedly fighting his way through three enormous ogres and then breaking the witches wand.
Inkspot said:
I think I answered that earlier on; I apologise if not, and you're actually asking a different question.
Inkspot said:
Heh - I've been waiting for someone to ask me that. Yes; I love the books, with the possible exception of The Last Battle (which I find interesting rather than enjoyable, though finding interest is an enjoyable activity
). Like many on here, Narnia has been with me since I was a child. They may well have sparked my interest in the fantasy genre in general, which has been a source of enormous pleasure to me throughout my lifetime.However, I also think the Narnia books are flawed, for a variety of reasons (some mitigating, such as the time period they were written in - I could similarly point out jarring moments in other authors I cherish, like Enid Blyton) and therefore have criticisms to make. This forum would be a very boring place if people agreed all the time, though it would equally be dull if others launched attacks for no other reason than hatred of the books.
All this discussion about who did what, or was allowed to do what, or was expected to do what, is interesting, but to me it seems to be only underscoring the fact that we've got two parties here coming at things from very different perspectives. Until we grapple with the difference in perspectives, we'll just be whacking at leaves. What we need to go for is the root of things.
slideyfoot, I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you are unaware that in our day and culture, the term "sexist" carries a very negative connotation. It is judgemental by it's nature. It may be qualified by terms like "he was a product of his times", but the baseline tenor of the phrase is that the person was, ultimately, wrong - if only because "his times" were wrong. But if you're doing that, then you're holding "his times" up to some kind of moral standard and then saying they fall short of the standard.
So here's the first question: where do you get this standard that you hold Lewis (or "his times") up to?
This puts you in a bind, since as an atheistic materialist, you don't acknowledge that man can be held up to any standard but the cultural mores he constructs himself. When it comes to morals and standards, the only leg the materialist has to stand on is that of cultural consensus. Whatever the members of a given culture decide is right for them, that becomes their set of mores, right? But if that's the case, then what right does any culture have to judge another one for issues like sexism or racism? What right do you have to refer to Lewis, or the culture he came from, as sexist? If those were the standards and mores of that time and place, then who is anyone to say they are "wrong"? Because "wrong" implies an absolute standard, and once you invoke an absolute standard, you have to explain where you got it.
Here's the second issue. When critiquing the work of another, it's not only good scholarship but common courtesy to make every effort to thoroughly understand not only the cultural contest of that person, but his personal beliefs and attitudes. When you, personally, speak of Lewis, you have to make an extra effort, since you and he stand on opposite sides of some very critical issues, and thus you will have a very difficult time comprehending some of his presuppositions. In fact, given the nature of your education, there are some things he assumes that you not only don't understand, but don't have the mental categories to comprehend. Trying to explain them is something like trying to explain the workings of a toaster to someone who has no idea what electricity is. Nonetheless, because you are obviously intelligent and seem willing to try, I'll have a go at it.
The core issue of the the debate to this point hinges on the issue of the significance (meaning) of the person. If I understand your contention correctly, it is that Lucy and Susan were, essentially, relegated to roles of less significance from the time Father Christmas utters his fateful phrase all the way through their reign as queens of Narnia. When you say things like:
As a self-professed atheistic materialist, you're in a bit of a bind when it comes to the question of the significance of the person. First off, if we're all just accidental products of our environment - complex chemical reactions, so to speak - then why all this concern about significance? But even allowing that people can have significance: upon what is that based? I'm presuming, of course, that we both understand a certain baseline value that everyone has, but I'm talking beyond that. What makes one person more significant, more meaningful than another? The heart of your indignation when you say things like
Lacking any higher standard, the only basis that the materialist has for personal significance is actions. What someone does determines their value to others, and their value to others determines their meaning (significance). This is why our culture values doctors and judges more than waitresses and garbagemen. Of course, everyone has basic rights (the "inalienable rights" of the U.S. Declaration of Independence), but when the rubber meets the road, certain people are considered of higher value than others, and the only standard by which this value is measured is what that person has done or can do. To summarize, the materialistic path to personal significance looks like this:
DEEDS --(create)--> PERSONAL VALUE --(give rise to)--> SIGNIFICANCE (MEANING)
Lewis was not an atheistic materialist. He was an orthodox Christian, which meant his understanding of the person and his significance was completely different. He not only believed in a transcendant reality, but he believed that this material world was a dim reflection of that trancendant reality, but that the reflection was true as far as it went. When he read statements like, "man is made in the image and likeness of God", he understood that to mean that value was inherent to each human being no matter what he did or didn't do - it was "built in", so to speak. And that didn't mean some minimal baseline, either, that meant the capacity for full transcendant glory and adoption into the family of God was part of every human who drew breath. To Lewis, this was the central reality of mankind that governed each person's actions. Everyone is significant, and from that significance rises both value and deeds. His path of significance looked more like this:
MEANING (SIGNIFICANCE) --(gives rise to)--> RIGHT DEEDS
inherent in person --(foundation for)--> PERSONAL VALUE
This is the most critical difference between your thinking and his. As a materialist, you have no framework for understanding inherent significance. To you, we're all a bunch of accidents. Any value that any one of us might have can only be gained from other humans, and that by what we do or can do for them. But Lewis understood that value was granted from God, and did not depend on what a person did. This is why you so radically misunderstand him: you keep filtering his words through your presuppositions - again, something that is not only unjust but very poor scholarship. This is why you can't understand it when inkspot tries to explain that in Lewis' eyes, Susan and Lucy had the places of greatest honor of all. They were privileged to witness Aslan's execution, to grieve over Him, to witness His resurrection and to ride on His back. When you apply your presuppositions to that, you end up with the predictable result, as you say:
In short, until you make an effort to understand Lewis' framework, all you're doing with your ranting is displaying your own ignorance and bigotry. And if you come back and say that his framework is all wrong, you'd better have a credible standard to which you can appeal - that is, something more than "I don't like it" or "my women's studies professor thinks it's stupid." If you really want to understand this in depth, read Till We Have Faces - but be ready to view life from Lewis' perspective. This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but to refuse to do it because you think it's too hard, or foolish, or not to your taste - well, that's just juvenile.
slideyfoot, I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you are unaware that in our day and culture, the term "sexist" carries a very negative connotation. It is judgemental by it's nature. It may be qualified by terms like "he was a product of his times", but the baseline tenor of the phrase is that the person was, ultimately, wrong - if only because "his times" were wrong. But if you're doing that, then you're holding "his times" up to some kind of moral standard and then saying they fall short of the standard.
So here's the first question: where do you get this standard that you hold Lewis (or "his times") up to?
This puts you in a bind, since as an atheistic materialist, you don't acknowledge that man can be held up to any standard but the cultural mores he constructs himself. When it comes to morals and standards, the only leg the materialist has to stand on is that of cultural consensus. Whatever the members of a given culture decide is right for them, that becomes their set of mores, right? But if that's the case, then what right does any culture have to judge another one for issues like sexism or racism? What right do you have to refer to Lewis, or the culture he came from, as sexist? If those were the standards and mores of that time and place, then who is anyone to say they are "wrong"? Because "wrong" implies an absolute standard, and once you invoke an absolute standard, you have to explain where you got it.
Here's the second issue. When critiquing the work of another, it's not only good scholarship but common courtesy to make every effort to thoroughly understand not only the cultural contest of that person, but his personal beliefs and attitudes. When you, personally, speak of Lewis, you have to make an extra effort, since you and he stand on opposite sides of some very critical issues, and thus you will have a very difficult time comprehending some of his presuppositions. In fact, given the nature of your education, there are some things he assumes that you not only don't understand, but don't have the mental categories to comprehend. Trying to explain them is something like trying to explain the workings of a toaster to someone who has no idea what electricity is. Nonetheless, because you are obviously intelligent and seem willing to try, I'll have a go at it.
The core issue of the the debate to this point hinges on the issue of the significance (meaning) of the person. If I understand your contention correctly, it is that Lucy and Susan were, essentially, relegated to roles of less significance from the time Father Christmas utters his fateful phrase all the way through their reign as queens of Narnia. When you say things like:
andslideyfoot said:
what you are doing is bristling at the implied subordinate significance of the women (I'll leave aside the question of whether Father Christmas actually meant that, or whether that's an interpretive overlay on your part.) Your posts are shot through with these kind of statements, so I hope you'll agree with me that the significance of the person is indeed the central issue - as it is with all question of sexism and racism.slideyfoot said:
As a self-professed atheistic materialist, you're in a bit of a bind when it comes to the question of the significance of the person. First off, if we're all just accidental products of our environment - complex chemical reactions, so to speak - then why all this concern about significance? But even allowing that people can have significance: upon what is that based? I'm presuming, of course, that we both understand a certain baseline value that everyone has, but I'm talking beyond that. What makes one person more significant, more meaningful than another? The heart of your indignation when you say things like
is clearly that the girls were not given the same opportunities to achieve significance as the boys were.slideyfoot said:
Lacking any higher standard, the only basis that the materialist has for personal significance is actions. What someone does determines their value to others, and their value to others determines their meaning (significance). This is why our culture values doctors and judges more than waitresses and garbagemen. Of course, everyone has basic rights (the "inalienable rights" of the U.S. Declaration of Independence), but when the rubber meets the road, certain people are considered of higher value than others, and the only standard by which this value is measured is what that person has done or can do. To summarize, the materialistic path to personal significance looks like this:
DEEDS --(create)--> PERSONAL VALUE --(give rise to)--> SIGNIFICANCE (MEANING)
Lewis was not an atheistic materialist. He was an orthodox Christian, which meant his understanding of the person and his significance was completely different. He not only believed in a transcendant reality, but he believed that this material world was a dim reflection of that trancendant reality, but that the reflection was true as far as it went. When he read statements like, "man is made in the image and likeness of God", he understood that to mean that value was inherent to each human being no matter what he did or didn't do - it was "built in", so to speak. And that didn't mean some minimal baseline, either, that meant the capacity for full transcendant glory and adoption into the family of God was part of every human who drew breath. To Lewis, this was the central reality of mankind that governed each person's actions. Everyone is significant, and from that significance rises both value and deeds. His path of significance looked more like this:
MEANING (SIGNIFICANCE) --(gives rise to)--> RIGHT DEEDS
inherent in person --(foundation for)--> PERSONAL VALUE
This is the most critical difference between your thinking and his. As a materialist, you have no framework for understanding inherent significance. To you, we're all a bunch of accidents. Any value that any one of us might have can only be gained from other humans, and that by what we do or can do for them. But Lewis understood that value was granted from God, and did not depend on what a person did. This is why you so radically misunderstand him: you keep filtering his words through your presuppositions - again, something that is not only unjust but very poor scholarship. This is why you can't understand it when inkspot tries to explain that in Lewis' eyes, Susan and Lucy had the places of greatest honor of all. They were privileged to witness Aslan's execution, to grieve over Him, to witness His resurrection and to ride on His back. When you apply your presuppositions to that, you end up with the predictable result, as you say:
But to Lewis, being with Aslan was the place of honor. All the guys did was fight, for pity's sake - and they weren't very successful at it (in case it escaped you, both in the book and the movie they were losing the battle until Aslan shows up.)slideyfoot said:
In short, until you make an effort to understand Lewis' framework, all you're doing with your ranting is displaying your own ignorance and bigotry. And if you come back and say that his framework is all wrong, you'd better have a credible standard to which you can appeal - that is, something more than "I don't like it" or "my women's studies professor thinks it's stupid." If you really want to understand this in depth, read Till We Have Faces - but be ready to view life from Lewis' perspective. This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but to refuse to do it because you think it's too hard, or foolish, or not to your taste - well, that's just juvenile.
slideyfoot
New member
Looks like we're going to need some more threads
That brings the discussion to a quite different place - indeed, a considerably more interesting place, so thanks for raising those points, Prince. In fact, a lot of those deserve their own thread. Therefore, you've given me a lot to deal with in that post, so I may need to come back to some of it later - I apologise in advance if I miss parts out. I'll deal with the bit on moral standards in this post - seeing as thats a personal question, hopefully that means I'm equipped to answer:
I'm not religious, in that you're absolutely correct. However, when it comes to moral standards, I can see we're going to hit a problem. I don't view morality as coming from a god, or indeed as necessarily religious. I imagine that like most Christians I've spoken to, you would see morality as an inherently Christian set of values, which are responsible for any later moral codes (such as legal systems etc).
To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then I see no reason they shouldn't be doing it. The reason this is very basic is because there are all sorts of problems when you start to expand beyond that - how do you define harm? Direct or indirect? Is it merely physical, or would you also include psychological? If the latter, how far does that go? Could a homophobic individual claim that the behaviour of homosexuals caused him psychological damage? It could also be applied to the points I've made throughout this thread - why read a book if its going to offend you? Other people, such as others on this thread, can happily read Narnia and take only positive values from it. One of many points we could discuss at length, perhaps in another thread?
The only 'Christian' moral I have strong views upon is that of infidelity. I'd agree that this is something I cannot abide, though my reasoning - I think - is rational. If one member of a monogamous relationship wishes to sleep with someone outside of that relationship, then they should end the relationship first. To do anything else is cowardly; I am appalled that people can proceed with their previous relationship after such a betrayal of trust, fully aware of what they've done. Excuses such as man is 'naturally polygamous' or whatever hold no water; if you enter into a monogamous relationship, you have stated a commitment to monogamy. If you no longer with to be monogamous with that person, then the relationship should come to an end before a new one is begun, or alternately, you find like-minded individuals to be polygamous with.
Sexism is also, in my opinion, not a matter of moral standards in the Christian sense, but practical implications. If a woman is viewed as only suitable for childbearing and childrearing (or simply as 'lesser' than a man), then this limits her earning power in the marketplace. It also prevents her from accomplishing personal goals she might have; say, becoming a competitive mixed martial arts fighter. Pay (as I've quoted earlier in another thread) can also be affected if a woman is not valued to the same degree as a man (figures on disparity in pay between genders indicate that this devaluation continues to be the case); this impacts directly on her quality of life and ability to care for any dependants. That is why I get irritated by sexist media; it causes restriction of opportunities by reinforcing a conception that men are of more importance/value etc than women. Although I'm sure as its a long-held belief I've had since about the age of 10 (modified over time, of course), there may be non-rational elements underneath any justification. I can see some might view all this as a rather big leap from a few lines in an old children's book, albeit one that retains contemporary dissemination.
As to the quite valid points you make about my comparative lack of knowledge on C.S. Lewis' ideology, I can accept that reading further into his religious thinking would provide some further explanation to various apparent instances of racism, sexism etc in Narnia. If I really wanted to make a proper study of the possible bigotry in Narnia, then as you say, it would require some serious reading on my part. There is no way I can mount a scholarly critique of his position without having read secondary material, rather than just the primary source.
However, the main angle I'm tackling this from is two-fold - firstly, how does Narnia come across to a child, who is not going to have the option of in-depth academic understanding of theological and ideological constructs? Secondly, how can the books be adapted in such a way as to become palatable to a modern audience? This is why I brought up the question of what would I want my daughter (if I ever had children) to take from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? Would I even want her to read a book that implies (to focus purely on the text) women are in some way inferior to men? As an adult, I can, as you suggest, read up on Lewis. I can discover what themes he draws from Christianity, and how his depiction of women is dependent upon beliefs orbiting the books, rather than explicated within them. But a child does not have this option, neither does a member of a general audience with only casual, if any, interest in Lewis. Herein lies the real problem I have with the books.
However, as I've noted, I also happen to love Narnia - it means a lot to me, as a part of my childhood. I have not grown up with a sexist perspective. Does this mean I can rely on my hypothetical daughter treating the book as a pure adventure story, without being influenced by sexist implications?
That is very kind of you, and I do appreciate the effort. Hopefully the above post has given you some indication of where I'm coming from, even if it turns out that it merely confirms your previous opinion on my thinking. Whichever, you've given me something to ponder, always a valuable gift.
That brings the discussion to a quite different place - indeed, a considerably more interesting place, so thanks for raising those points, Prince. In fact, a lot of those deserve their own thread. Therefore, you've given me a lot to deal with in that post, so I may need to come back to some of it later - I apologise in advance if I miss parts out. I'll deal with the bit on moral standards in this post - seeing as thats a personal question, hopefully that means I'm equipped to answer:
PrinceoftheWest said:
I'm not religious, in that you're absolutely correct. However, when it comes to moral standards, I can see we're going to hit a problem. I don't view morality as coming from a god, or indeed as necessarily religious. I imagine that like most Christians I've spoken to, you would see morality as an inherently Christian set of values, which are responsible for any later moral codes (such as legal systems etc).
To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then I see no reason they shouldn't be doing it. The reason this is very basic is because there are all sorts of problems when you start to expand beyond that - how do you define harm? Direct or indirect? Is it merely physical, or would you also include psychological? If the latter, how far does that go? Could a homophobic individual claim that the behaviour of homosexuals caused him psychological damage? It could also be applied to the points I've made throughout this thread - why read a book if its going to offend you? Other people, such as others on this thread, can happily read Narnia and take only positive values from it. One of many points we could discuss at length, perhaps in another thread?
The only 'Christian' moral I have strong views upon is that of infidelity. I'd agree that this is something I cannot abide, though my reasoning - I think - is rational. If one member of a monogamous relationship wishes to sleep with someone outside of that relationship, then they should end the relationship first. To do anything else is cowardly; I am appalled that people can proceed with their previous relationship after such a betrayal of trust, fully aware of what they've done. Excuses such as man is 'naturally polygamous' or whatever hold no water; if you enter into a monogamous relationship, you have stated a commitment to monogamy. If you no longer with to be monogamous with that person, then the relationship should come to an end before a new one is begun, or alternately, you find like-minded individuals to be polygamous with.
Sexism is also, in my opinion, not a matter of moral standards in the Christian sense, but practical implications. If a woman is viewed as only suitable for childbearing and childrearing (or simply as 'lesser' than a man), then this limits her earning power in the marketplace. It also prevents her from accomplishing personal goals she might have; say, becoming a competitive mixed martial arts fighter. Pay (as I've quoted earlier in another thread) can also be affected if a woman is not valued to the same degree as a man (figures on disparity in pay between genders indicate that this devaluation continues to be the case); this impacts directly on her quality of life and ability to care for any dependants. That is why I get irritated by sexist media; it causes restriction of opportunities by reinforcing a conception that men are of more importance/value etc than women. Although I'm sure as its a long-held belief I've had since about the age of 10 (modified over time, of course), there may be non-rational elements underneath any justification. I can see some might view all this as a rather big leap from a few lines in an old children's book, albeit one that retains contemporary dissemination.
As to the quite valid points you make about my comparative lack of knowledge on C.S. Lewis' ideology, I can accept that reading further into his religious thinking would provide some further explanation to various apparent instances of racism, sexism etc in Narnia. If I really wanted to make a proper study of the possible bigotry in Narnia, then as you say, it would require some serious reading on my part. There is no way I can mount a scholarly critique of his position without having read secondary material, rather than just the primary source.
However, the main angle I'm tackling this from is two-fold - firstly, how does Narnia come across to a child, who is not going to have the option of in-depth academic understanding of theological and ideological constructs? Secondly, how can the books be adapted in such a way as to become palatable to a modern audience? This is why I brought up the question of what would I want my daughter (if I ever had children) to take from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? Would I even want her to read a book that implies (to focus purely on the text) women are in some way inferior to men? As an adult, I can, as you suggest, read up on Lewis. I can discover what themes he draws from Christianity, and how his depiction of women is dependent upon beliefs orbiting the books, rather than explicated within them. But a child does not have this option, neither does a member of a general audience with only casual, if any, interest in Lewis. Herein lies the real problem I have with the books.
However, as I've noted, I also happen to love Narnia - it means a lot to me, as a part of my childhood. I have not grown up with a sexist perspective. Does this mean I can rely on my hypothetical daughter treating the book as a pure adventure story, without being influenced by sexist implications?
That is very kind of you, and I do appreciate the effort. Hopefully the above post has given you some indication of where I'm coming from, even if it turns out that it merely confirms your previous opinion on my thinking
. Whichever, you've given me something to ponder, always a valuable gift.
Slideyfoot, I honestly did not know you were not a believer -- I only read you were an atheist in the "over 20" thread yesterday, so forgive me. I was speaking to you as if you shared Lewis' understanding of the transcendant qualities of each gender, and of course you have no such notion. So no wonder my reasoning didn't make any sense to you. Sorry! I should get the facts first, huh?
I would love for you to join the Mere Christianity reading group over in the Christianity and Narnia forum, because this issue of morality is just what we are discussing and just what Lewis discusses in the first three chapters of the book! If you have any interest at all, please join us and share your perspective a an atheist! I think it would be really intriguing, because, you know, Lewis was an atheist for so many years and then changed ... I would be curious what you think of his logic and defense of "mere Christianity."
I will say that you need have no fear that reading the Chronicles will warp your eventual daughter: it will show her just what Lewis intended: that significance already resides within her (forgive me: because she bears the image of God!), and she doesn't have to fight a battle to prove anything to anyone. What a great discovery!
No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to enjoy the stories -- I just believe their greatest message is the one of joy in relationship with Christ. As the books progress, it becomes clear the biggest attraction in Narnia for the children is not the magical land and talking creatures, but Aslan Himself. What a wonder, then, to realize: we can have our own relationship with him in this world, under his other name! This is the "true myth" that brought such great joy to Lewis when he realized it: in Christianity, all the truth found in old myths, all pleasure kids find in fairy tales, "come to life" in Jesus. So while you can enjoy the stories just for the sake of their being great adventure stories, you can also get something much greater from them if you are open to a spiritual world.
If you and PoTW want to begin a new thread on this subject or morality/significance, please feel free to launch it in the Christianity and Narnia Forum, where I think it will fit best. What a pleasure to see people exercising their brains in defense of their beliefs! That's another great point CS Lewis makes in Mere Christianity: Christianity ought to be a religion of INTELLIGENCE, with everyone exercising their intellect to the fullest when they meditate on and get to know God and the world He has made.
I would love for you to join the Mere Christianity reading group over in the Christianity and Narnia forum, because this issue of morality is just what we are discussing and just what Lewis discusses in the first three chapters of the book! If you have any interest at all, please join us and share your perspective a an atheist! I think it would be really intriguing, because, you know, Lewis was an atheist for so many years and then changed ... I would be curious what you think of his logic and defense of "mere Christianity."
I will say that you need have no fear that reading the Chronicles will warp your eventual daughter: it will show her just what Lewis intended: that significance already resides within her (forgive me: because she bears the image of God!), and she doesn't have to fight a battle to prove anything to anyone. What a great discovery!
No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to enjoy the stories -- I just believe their greatest message is the one of joy in relationship with Christ. As the books progress, it becomes clear the biggest attraction in Narnia for the children is not the magical land and talking creatures, but Aslan Himself. What a wonder, then, to realize: we can have our own relationship with him in this world, under his other name! This is the "true myth" that brought such great joy to Lewis when he realized it: in Christianity, all the truth found in old myths, all pleasure kids find in fairy tales, "come to life" in Jesus. So while you can enjoy the stories just for the sake of their being great adventure stories, you can also get something much greater from them if you are open to a spiritual world.
If you and PoTW want to begin a new thread on this subject or morality/significance, please feel free to launch it in the Christianity and Narnia Forum, where I think it will fit best. What a pleasure to see people exercising their brains in defense of their beliefs! That's another great point CS Lewis makes in Mere Christianity: Christianity ought to be a religion of INTELLIGENCE, with everyone exercising their intellect to the fullest when they meditate on and get to know God and the world He has made.
Gryphon
New member
inkspot said:
haha, thanks inky i made it myself. Oh, and Slidyfoot Father Christmas didnt want them to use their weapons, your right but just because he didnt want them to use it doesnt mean that he didnt expect them NOT to. As for women being "fine china" and "breaking the instant someone touches them" you dont know a true battle like you seem to think you do. People die in battles and while i wouldnt mind fighting alongside a brother, battles really are nasty affairs and some men, even strong ones, have a hard time surviving. Even if they do survive, they are haunted with the memories of people dying in front of them as they have to kill them themselves. Battle isnt as majestic as it seems in the movies. Would you really want those memories? Father Christmas, i believe, wasn't just protecting them from physical harm but spiritual harm as well...
Last edited:
perfectly said Gryphon. Its not that the girls couldn't fight, it would just be better for them if they didn't have to. I won't say more because you put it so well.
slideyfoot
New member
Gryphon said:
I'm well aware that people die in battles, often horribly and to no purpose - in artistic terms, we can turn to poets like Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen if we have any doubts on the matter, not to mention the images we see on the news every day. I don't claim to have any special knowledge of battles, not being a soldier; I apologise if thats the impression you got.
I would have no problem with Father Christmas' comment about battles being ugly affairs if it wasn't connected to his wish to bar Lucy and Susan from fighting in them, while at the same time having no qualms about Peter and Edmund's involvement. If battles are ugly affairs, they are ugly for both genders and all ages; the same restriction should have applied to all of the children, or at least the two younger, Edmund and Lucy. That would have made sense. Barring an elder and younger female, whilst simultaneously encouraging an elder and younger male, is ridiculous - the sensible option would be the elder female and elder male. This to me seems to imply that he does not believe women are capable of combat, but men inherently are - hence we have a young male fighting his way through three ogres.
However, I think my point on this has been made and remade; PrinceoftheWest has moved the discussion on, perhaps even off the thread.
Inkspot said:
Not having read the book in question, I wouldn't be able to add much to the discussion. Once I get some spare time away from my PhD reading, I may take a look at the work; in terms of Narnia, I'm more interested in Lewis' biography, so will probably use leisure time to get through one of the many on offer first. I'd also be intrigued by any of Lewis' other works that relate to the Narnia books; I've read critical pieces by him on poetry, so perhaps his Christian apologetics will be equally readable.
Nevertheless, thanks for the invite; hopefully I'll be able to take you up on it at some point.
oh, and can I just say in response to slideyfoots comment on how do you explain this stuff to a child who doesn't have the theological background. In reality, what child cares?
We are all reading the book right now and just started with chaters 1-2 in the discussion. You may certainly drop in, even if you aren't reading the book, you are most welcome. If you get a chance, the book is excellent. I don't know that Lewis wrote anything about the Narnia books, but there is an excellent compilation of his letters to his young fans called CS Lewis' Letters to Children, with editors Lyle Dorsett and Marjorie Lamp Mead. He talks a lot about Narnia and his perceptions/intentions in letters to children who wrote to him. It's quite interesting. What is your PhD in?Slideyfoot said:
S
Sir_Peter_Wolfsbane
Guest
Can I just say that what I just read was some of the best and most intelligient conversation I have seen on this board? Props to everyone who fought for their opinion and never let up. Whether you see eye to eye is not the point, for it is in the deepest of our psyche to disagree with others, but that you maintained levels of maturity and honor needed to be commended.
I would offer my view, but the debate appears to be over. I won't start that over again.
I would offer my view, but the debate appears to be over. I won't start that over again.