Is he a sexist ass hole for not wanting to sexify bipedal machines? Or would he be one for insisting all robots be sexy curvy Soryama machines?
Neither: he's a sexist asshole for all his bits that say "making a robot look like a woman is stupid because women are badly designed", combined with all his "Julie Newmar is SMEXY so I must EXAMINE HER CLOSELY TO DETERMINE HOW BAD SHE IS" drooling.
You can see where he's trying to be clever, but failing miserably because he's just not good enough a writer to make that work.
I understand your argument and while I have yet to decide if I agree or disagree, does him being sexist necessarily include him being an asshole? Could you state that a belief is sexist without having to pass a raft of other judgement on the person?
Saying "I believe this belief is sexist and here's why" is going to invite a lot more debate and possibly acceptance than "YOU SEXIST ASSHOLE!" which is going to invite defensiveness and fighting and instead reduce debate.
>
And no, you don't "have" to do anything, I understand they're the ones that are sexist assholes, but in order to be effective, this is what will work. If you do want to change minds, or invite debate of ideas, this is what does that. I don't think I'm misunderstanding your purpose.
Whereas I feel that Isaac Asimov is unlikely to show up to defend himself, and thus his feelings are unlikely to be relevant.
To your larger point, it is absolutely possible to point out a sexist statement without saying anything larger about the speaker, because a great many people say a great many stupid things, at various points.
Asimov is not "some dude who said a sexist thing once". He's Isaac Asimov, legendary for his phenomenally sexist practices. He had conrunners arrange butt-fondling exhibitions in his honour, as part of his conditions for showing up.
Asimov was a dick. You can totally argue "product of his time" and "maybe he would have been different had he known better", but you can't really argue "wasn't a raging asshole."
Oh hey, you edited it while I was making my reply.
Tone arguments, where "I might take your point more seriously if only you were NICER about how you said it!", play poorly here.
I'm not really in the larger business of convincing dead sexist assholes that their behaviour was unacceptable, and I'm certainly not in the business of being nice about it. My pointing out any one incidence of Asimov's sexism, or Campbell's racism, or Marion Zimmer Bradley's child-rape enthusiam, has nothing to do with any attempt to make some dead dipshit do something different.
I should perhaps clarify the MZB thing: I understand that she didn't engage in child-rape herself, she only actively abetted and covered for her husband the child rapist, only intervening when she thought he might target her son and then backing off again once her son, at 15, was too old for her husband to be interested in.
That's technically possibly not "child-rape enthusiasm", if you're the hair-splitting kind who feels like defending Bradley and Campbell and Asimov on technicalities.
Actually Masamune Shirow justified combat robots being gynoids because the wider hips aid with balance, the shorter and less bulky form saves on weight and...something I can't remember about the breasts, they had a functionality, possibly storage or additional balancing aids or sensors.
Can't find the bloody thing from Manga Mania I saw that all in though, google is giving me a mixture of Shirow's porn and stuff by Adam Warren for some reason :?
does him being sexist necessarily include him being an asshole?
No. Noooooo. See, it's totally possible to claim someone is completely free of assholedom even if they are reflexively degrading the ~half of the human population that consists of icky inferior girls.
Really!
People do that all the time.
(They do. They really really do.)
Saying "I believe this belief is sexist and here's why" is going to invite a lot more debate and possibly acceptance than "YOU SEXIST ASSHOLE!" which is going to invite defensiveness and fighting and instead reduce debate.
Your inference that whether this is sexist is a topic for debate rather than the kind of obvious fucking fact you think people would have fucking figured out in 2-fucking-0-fucking-1-fucking-4 makes it super clear where you're coming from. Please, let's go on and on and on about how whether or not they're actually mean people or just hurting people in the exact same way that mean people do. Please, let's throw that into question again and again and fucking again, because it's so very very important that the feelings and self-assurance of sexist assholes be protected, and that they not ever ever ever get their feelings hurt because then you might be mean and they wouldn't get cuddles and they'd have no way to save face and lets make it all about their learning experiences and their teaching moments and not any basic assumption that maybe they should get their thumbs out of their asses and grow the fuck up.
(Exactly the way you politely sit down and say "I believe that that behaviour was rude and here's why" if someone starts shitting on the floor of a coffeeshop, right?)
After all, if sexist behaviour was regularly called out and named for the shit it is, how could anyone ever learn that it was bad? Why, the only way to present it as unacceptable is by gently and respectfully engaging with sexism!
You do that. You go right ahead and coddle people who want to denigrate half the human race, because obviously if the behaviour is never called out as bad it's totally going to change. That's real good on you.
To your larger point, it is absolutely possible to point out a sexist statement without saying anything larger about the speaker, because a great many people say a great many stupid things, at various points.
I very much agree with this, and I'm sure none of us are innocent, hence compassion towards those that do.
He had conrunners arrange butt-fondling exhibitions in his honour, as part of his conditions for showing up.
Haven't heard anything about it. Can you fondle anyone or does it have to be unsuspecting women?
Asimov was a dick. You can totally argue "product of his time" and "maybe he would have been different had he known better", but you can't really argue "wasn't a raging asshole."
I don't know how much weight "product of one's time" carries. On one hand, there's plenty of people who probably WOULDN'T do such things if they ever considered it, but it just wasn't a thing. On the other hand, do times change if people are all excused? Perhaps if we don't condemn humans and devalue humans, but condemn ideas and devalue ideas.
What I think you may have missed is that I'm not terribly interested in "discussing" Isaac Asimov's sexism. Asimov was sexist, Asimov said extremely sexist things, Asimov indulged in unacceptable misogynist behaviour. In order for there to be a "discussion", someone would have to argue either that those things didn't happen, or that those things weren't realy indicative of Asimov's opinions despite him expressing them repeatedly at length and without prompting.
Asimov himself is, in the mean time, dead. There's no chance that anyone might convince him to recant or "clarify" his lifetime of misogynist writings, even if they expected that for some wacky reason he might change his mind about everything.
There's no benefit to pretending Asimov's actions and opinions didn't reflect THE TRUE ASIMOV, or worrying about it.
The breasts are not additional balancing aids. They're additional off-balancing aids though?
Wider hips penalize running speed, and only really aid balance notably when you're doing something like squatting (not that this isn't entirely handy) - significant boobs counteract this effect.
I really wouldn't use Shirow as a reference on "great design principles". He's a reference on "really REALLY good fluff explanations" however.
My husband came across an article somewhere about a doctor that thought to use lasers to create scar tissue under the skin to give a more natural lift to breasts. I can't see that working better than the link you posted.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-05 09:18 pm (UTC)Well it begs the question
Date: 2014-06-05 10:50 pm (UTC)Or would he be one for insisting all robots be sexy curvy Soryama machines?
And what about the male form?
Speaking as a chick with an F cup - I see his point. These things are in the fricking way.
The slender A cup, long legged frame of a lithe woman is good for one thing only.
KILLING PEOPLE!!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 12:46 am (UTC)Or would he be one for insisting all robots be sexy curvy Soryama machines?
Neither: he's a sexist asshole for all his bits that say "making a robot look like a woman is stupid because women are badly designed", combined with all his "Julie Newmar is SMEXY so I must EXAMINE HER CLOSELY TO DETERMINE HOW BAD SHE IS" drooling.
You can see where he's trying to be clever, but failing miserably because he's just not good enough a writer to make that work.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:25 am (UTC)Saying "I believe this belief is sexist and here's why" is going to invite a lot more debate and possibly acceptance than "YOU SEXIST ASSHOLE!" which is going to invite defensiveness and fighting and instead reduce debate.
>
And no, you don't "have" to do anything, I understand they're the ones that are sexist assholes, but in order to be effective, this is what will work. If you do want to change minds, or invite debate of ideas, this is what does that. I don't think I'm misunderstanding your purpose.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:33 am (UTC)To your larger point, it is absolutely possible to point out a sexist statement without saying anything larger about the speaker, because a great many people say a great many stupid things, at various points.
Asimov is not "some dude who said a sexist thing once". He's Isaac Asimov, legendary for his phenomenally sexist practices. He had conrunners arrange butt-fondling exhibitions in his honour, as part of his conditions for showing up.
Asimov was a dick. You can totally argue "product of his time" and "maybe he would have been different had he known better", but you can't really argue "wasn't a raging asshole."
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:40 am (UTC)Tone arguments, where "I might take your point more seriously if only you were NICER about how you said it!", play poorly here.
I'm not really in the larger business of convincing dead sexist assholes that their behaviour was unacceptable, and I'm certainly not in the business of being nice about it. My pointing out any one incidence of Asimov's sexism, or Campbell's racism, or Marion Zimmer Bradley's child-rape enthusiam, has nothing to do with any attempt to make some dead dipshit do something different.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:46 am (UTC)That's technically possibly not "child-rape enthusiasm", if you're the hair-splitting kind who feels like defending Bradley and Campbell and Asimov on technicalities.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:47 am (UTC)Can't find the bloody thing from Manga Mania I saw that all in though, google is giving me a mixture of Shirow's porn and stuff by Adam Warren for some reason :?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 02:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 03:09 am (UTC)No. Noooooo. See, it's totally possible to claim someone is completely free of assholedom even if they are reflexively degrading the ~half of the human population that consists of icky inferior girls.
Really!
People do that all the time.
(They do. They really really do.)
Saying "I believe this belief is sexist and here's why" is going to invite a lot more debate and possibly acceptance than "YOU SEXIST ASSHOLE!" which is going to invite defensiveness and fighting and instead reduce debate.
Your inference that whether this is sexist is a topic for debate rather than the kind of obvious fucking fact you think people would have fucking figured out in 2-fucking-0-fucking-1-fucking-4 makes it super clear where you're coming from. Please, let's go on and on and on about how whether or not they're actually mean people or just hurting people in the exact same way that mean people do. Please, let's throw that into question again and again and fucking again, because it's so very very important that the feelings and self-assurance of sexist assholes be protected, and that they not ever ever ever get their feelings hurt because then you might be mean and they wouldn't get cuddles and they'd have no way to save face and lets make it all about their learning experiences and their teaching moments and not any basic assumption that maybe they should get their thumbs out of their asses and grow the fuck up.
(Exactly the way you politely sit down and say "I believe that that behaviour was rude and here's why" if someone starts shitting on the floor of a coffeeshop, right?)
After all, if sexist behaviour was regularly called out and named for the shit it is, how could anyone ever learn that it was bad? Why, the only way to present it as unacceptable is by gently and respectfully engaging with sexism!
You do that. You go right ahead and coddle people who want to denigrate half the human race, because obviously if the behaviour is never called out as bad it's totally going to change. That's real good on you.
*plonk*
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 04:11 am (UTC)I very much agree with this, and I'm sure none of us are innocent, hence compassion towards those that do.
He had conrunners arrange butt-fondling exhibitions in his honour, as part of his conditions for showing up.
Haven't heard anything about it. Can you fondle anyone or does it have to be unsuspecting women?
Asimov was a dick. You can totally argue "product of his time" and "maybe he would have been different had he known better", but you can't really argue "wasn't a raging asshole."
I don't know how much weight "product of one's time" carries. On one hand, there's plenty of people who probably WOULDN'T do such things if they ever considered it, but it just wasn't a thing. On the other hand, do times change if people are all excused? Perhaps if we don't condemn humans and devalue humans, but condemn ideas and devalue ideas.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 04:12 am (UTC)I don't care how they "play". If you make people defensive, you don't have a good discussion, end of story.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 04:55 am (UTC)Asimov himself is, in the mean time, dead. There's no chance that anyone might convince him to recant or "clarify" his lifetime of misogynist writings, even if they expected that for some wacky reason he might change his mind about everything.
There's no benefit to pretending Asimov's actions and opinions didn't reflect THE TRUE ASIMOV, or worrying about it.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 06:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 11:49 am (UTC)Well he used to grope women who got into lifts with him at cons, so yeah?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 12:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 03:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 07:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-06 07:52 pm (UTC)Wider hips penalize running speed, and only really aid balance notably when you're doing something like squatting (not that this isn't entirely handy) - significant boobs counteract this effect.
I really wouldn't use Shirow as a reference on "great design principles". He's a reference on "really REALLY good fluff explanations" however.
Not this
Date: 2014-06-06 10:24 pm (UTC)