Actually the difference between the gender roles in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land highlight why it bothers me. In Moon, the gender roles are odd for a reason (namely the moon is a prison colony with a skewed gender ratio). Heinlein doesn’t really discuss the gender roles on Earth that much, and he fashioned a scenario on the moon that would require different roles. In Stranger, the only reason for the male supremacy is the underlying prejudices of the author.
Chased but never caught - and I got the distinct impression this was more out of competitiveness than real interest. I’ve read about 60 of the damn things and have another 20 on my to read pile. Let’s just say that if they were popular today there would be Monk/Ham slash.
I don’t think I’d ever read this story before, although I’d heard of it, but part of it is available online through the Google Books preview. Here’s the page where the pilot discovers the girl.
It’s made quite clear that he wouldn’t have hesitated to get rid of the stowaway if it had been a man, but there’s nothing about what would have happened if the stowaway had been a boy. The text contrasts “man” and “girl”, not “boy” and “girl”, “man” and “woman”, or “male” and “female”. And while it would have been common enough at the time the story was written to refer to a woman in her 20s or older as a “girl”, the Marilyn character is younger than that – she’s described as “a girl in her teens”, and later as “only eighteen”. And while 18 is, in the US, the age at which one reaches legal adulthood, that doesn’t mean an 18 year old can’t also be an adolescent. “Adolescent” is a developmental term, not a legal one.
Since there are several pages missing from the story in Google Books I don’t know if there’s something else in the story that would make it more clear that Marilyn is getting special consideration because of her sex. But from what I can read, it looks like the issue is more her age and naivete.
My brother, a high school English teacher, moved to New Zealand some time ago.
He rang me the other week at his wit’s end.
His class is currently doing The Merchant of Venice. Apparently, there is little or no anti-Semitism in NZ; or, at least, amongst thy young 'uns.
The kids just don’t get the themes, constantly scratching their heads and asking, " Why? That doesn’t make any sense!".
The class is the usual NZ mixture of pakahoe and maori kids.
Any Kiwi in Dopeland lend assistance?
That’s archaic language, not archaic attitudes —“negro” was an perfectly polite term until the latter half of the 20th century, and AFAIK, its female form was the same. But I see what you mean.
Racism and sexism in novels tends not to bother me when it’s appropriate to its setting. In fact, the opposite is more likely to annoy me —when medieval characters (for example) have preoccupations in line with those today. Anyone remember that version of King Arthur’s tale with Keira Knightley in it, where Arthur was all about religious freedom and democracy? Icky.
For science fiction, though, couldn’t you rationalize it at this point as a depiction of a culture different than yours? For example, if I ever watch old SF movies like Rollerball or Logan’s Run, and you’ve got these dudes with porn 'staches sitting around on shag carpet engaging in free love with gals in harem pants and feathered hair – well, I just think to myself that in this dystopian future, culture came full circle back to the 70s.
You kinda can, but since every single old SF work (that I can think of) depicts a future where women are subservient, that means that I’d have to picture it as a dystopia every single time - even when it’s supposed to be a wonderful future, like in Star Trek TOS.
It doesn’t ruin my enjoyment of the show - it takes me out of it a little bit, makes me more detached (depending on the storyline), but it’s still enjoyable.
The one where, IIRC, the story is set just at the time of the fall or Rome but the armor on the guys (not on Knightley, who wears a suede bikini) is high-Gothic? Never bothered watch it.
Re. the whole Heinlein discussion, his attitudes are completely enlightened compared with those of other people of the same time and place. He doesn’t wave rainbow flags, but neither do Verne or Wells. How far back does a writer need to have been born before it’s all right for his cultural background to differ from yours?
I think I must be writing in invisible ink! Even though he was enlightened for his time, he’s still writing a future where women are subservient to men. That’s totally acceptable in the past, or in a future dystopia where there’s a reason for this change, but, as it is, it jars. It makes me a little bit less involved in the story, adds extra weight tugging on my suspension of disbelief. Like I’ve said, that’s not his fault.
Yeah, but that’s because you’re expecting the writer to have the same cultural experience as you do. Heinlein doesn’t write women as subservient (when he does) because he thinks they should be, but because in his experience they are and it’s as much of his experience as the fact that women have boobs. The notion that the women he knew were subservient due to conditioning hadn’t crossed his mental radar.
I know it can be jarring (clearly it is for you), but it’s a matter of changing your frame of reference. I would never have been able to enjoy Dumas or Salgari otherwise, and both Verne and Wells wrote science fiction and make Heinlein sound so enlightened his radiance is blinding.
It’s because I’m not expecting the future to have subservient women (unless it’s a noted feature of that future world). I’m quite aware that a man writing in the sixties doesn’t have the same cultural experience as me; dude, I’d have to be the stupidest person in the world not to be aware of that. 
It’s the same with those stories set in the past where the characters are too enlightened for their times. (Enlightened isn’t the perfect word here, but you know what I mean). That’s because of the frame of reference the writer’s coming from, too; that frame of reference is often pretty close to mine, but that doesn’t mean I like such anachronisms.
Verne and Wells writing more sexist stuff doesn’t mean that Heinlein’s works are suddenly not at all sexist. And, like I said, the stories are still enjoyable.
Actually, the armorwas just about the only thing I liked about the movie. I doubt is was accurate, but it had a nice late-Roman feel.
It’s not so much a matter of cultural context as it is one of suspension of disbelief. Wells and Verne wrote stories set in periods we know had different social mores; Heinlein wrote stories set in the future, where we expect people to behave differently. To a modern reader, Heinlein’s future societies make no sense.
She wrote all those stories where a Belgian fellow catches dastardly English murderers, right?
I can accept and actually appreciate well told depictions of cultures different than mine. That is not the problem. The problem is when the depiction doesn’t make sense. If the setting or presented history make the attitudes logical (e.g. a disease killed off half the women, technology has broken down returning humanity to a feudal state, etc.) then it makes the story better. If a story written in the 40s presents the year 2015 as having limited space travel and prosperous tech based economy but the women can only be housewives, teachers, or nurses it disrupts my suspension of disbelief.
I do not argue that. And if he wrote a story with science fiction elements but set in 1950, his attitudes wouldn’t bother me. It is the (even progressive) fifties attitudes of the author showing through in a story set in the near future that causes me to step out of the story. Fiction works best for me when I never have to make allowances. If all I have to consider is the world created by the author and not the world the author lived in it makes it a much more immersive experience.
I think that’s why the science fiction stories that age the best are those set in the far, far future, like *Dune *or the New Sun books.
What is your definition of “subservient to men?” For example, in the ST:TOS episode “Court Martial” I referred to earlier, the prosecuting attorney was a single woman lawyer who was clearly high in the hierarchy to be given the prosecution of a Starship Captain in front of a set of Admirals. Yes, she and Kirk had been involved, but that covers about a quarter of the galaxy. (I’ve often wondered what kind of conflict of interest rules the Federation has that would not force her to recuse herself.)
A good example of what and why can be found in Stranger in a Strange land. Early in the book when Heinlein is explain the background for the Man From Mars he talks about how the first mission to Mars was made up of both men and women. So far, so good. This makes sense to me in that we have had women astronauts for years. But a little later on we are in a hospital and there all the doctors are men and all the nurses are women looking to marry doctors. This jars because why would all doctors be men and the path for economic success for women be marrying up when women can reach the heights on their own. Later we are introduced to three highly capable women, each with multiple degrees and near the best around at several skills or fields and they find fulfillment by being the personal secretaries to the smartest man on earth.
Just how many women were there in command positions in Star Trek TOS? Being able to think of one doesn’t mean much. I know that Star Trek was pretty good for its time, and I appreciate it, but advanced for its time does not mean treating women as equals.
Alessan and Strassia are explaining it well, I think.
Whether or not Heinlein was sexist everywhere, he sure was in Stranger. In an odd way it did a good job forecasting various radical groups in the late '60s which yelled, screamed, and rioted for equality but were sexist as hell.