The idea that a group of editors can make decisions on behalf of readers about what to deem offensive represents a paternalistic and condescending attitude that devalues the abilities of readers to draw their own conclusions from what they read. Tied to this is a second issue of arrogance. But that thought and discussion won’t happen if the prose is sanitized to remove offensive passages.
These are complex questions that deserve thought and discussion about history, culture, and the intent of the author. Of course, we can also ask, “was Heinlein a sexist?” The answer to this is important in interpreting the content of the book and to understanding Heinlein’s contributions to literature. But we can also ask, is Heinlein’s prose a product of the cultural and historical context in which he wrote? There’s a good chance it is and it’s important to think about how the book reflects the time in which he wrote. But that’s a lazy mindset because it ignores some important questions.ĭid Heinlein use sexist language as a writing strategy intended to critique sexism? Probably not. A sensitivity reading would suggest the need for major revisions-probably rewriting the entire book.
The book is a brilliant consideration of the rise of intelligent machines, but Heinlein’s depiction of women is sexist, to say the least, as is the dialogue he develops for the moon’s inhabitants. One of the books we read is Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I teach a course on medical ethics and culture in which we have a segment on AI. Ron DeSantis’ Anti-Free Speech Crusade Would Cancel Fox News
0 kommentar(er)
