I didn't know how else to put it. The alternatives were even more technical.
Clearly, I need to get out more.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Except that the single most popular subject of painting in those centuries was the Virgin Mary.also produced centuries of art wherein women were accessories to men or unimportant except as objects.
Amen.It is foolish, and wrong, to see LOTR or any other work of art with modern eyes and be irritated or offended by what was unintentional and "natural".
Thank you for making my point, solictr.solicitr wrote:Except that the single most popular subject of painting in those centuries was the Virgin Mary.also produced centuries of art wherein women were accessories to men or unimportant except as objects.
Amen.It is foolish, and wrong, to see LOTR or any other work of art with modern eyes and be irritated or offended by what was unintentional and "natural".
I agree, and I do so precisely because the word "systematically" implies deliberateness. I accept that you intended no such implication. But I nonetheless maintain that it will be read to imply that, and that it is not unreasonable to do so.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:I said that I expected it to be the most controversial part of the book, because I do think it is controversial to say that the role of female characters was systematically reduced.
Yes, I noted both qualifiers (and I think I have quoted the "appears" pretty uniformly). I don't think it was ever disputed that your opinion that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically lessened" derives from your interpretation of your catalogue of changes. But it remains the case that your interpretation is (twice, and earliest) described as a systematic lessening/weakening of female characters. Again, I maintain, this is not the same thing as saying that:Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:soli (and Carl). There are two places where I use the word "systematically" and in both cases it is modified by the words "appears" or "seemingly" ("This small but significant change is the first of a number of occasions in which it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically lessened" "another small example of the seemingly systematic weakening of female characters".)
I do not and cannot agree with the former statement, whether "systematic" is taken to include deliberateness or not; but (setting aside the qualifier "significant" as an at least arguable subjective), I could agree to the latter statement. So had this latter statement been what you wrote throughout, I might still have had qualms about it, but I would not have taken so strong an exception as I did to your first two claims.the net result of the edits is a significant reduction of the female presence in the book.
I think I actually made it pretty clear in my very first post in response to this issue that I understood why you took exception to what I wrote, that I didn't think it was unreasonable for you to do so, and that I expected that others would do so as well. Nonetheless, I think that this dicussion (while uncomfortable at time for me) has been valuable, and I hope that you feel that it has been as well.But I am satisfied now that you do in fact understand, and accurately, precisely why I took strong exception to the first form of your claim, that you accept that it was not unreasonable for me to do so, and why it will not be surprising to see others do the same.
I maintained against this then (and still) that my opinion (that your actual statement implied deliberateness, and so misogyny -- again, even though you did not intend to do so) was (and is) "supported by the facts", and that you in fact did not say "only that the net result of the edits give the affect of reducing the role of women in the book". And I've been trying to establish just these things ever since.In regard to your substantive comments, nowhere to do I express an opinion that Christopher is misogynist, only that the net result of the edits give the affect of reducing the role of women in the book. I understand that it is your opinion that such is implied between the lines, so to speak, and I don't challenge your right to express that opinion, but I don't think it is supported by the facts.