Misogyny in Cryptonomicon

[jack]

First

First, I expect everyone to agree Cryptonomicon is a very mathmo book :) It diverges from accepted good practice in lots and lots of ways, dumping vast swathes of information on the reader, leaping from event to event with little linkage, and not really being consistent. But despite and because of that I love it.

There's one place where I'm caught in the middle though, and aspect of this. Several friends dislike the portrayal of women in Cryptonomicon. Several other friends couldn't see a problem.

I would say that (to me) it seems written from a male perspective. All of the main characters are men, and the few women featured (Kia, Amy, Charlene, Beryl) or mentioned (various wives, prostitutes) are not really characters in their own right, but exist only to show how the main characters interact with them and think about them.

(The nearest to an exception is Amy, who is cool. But you can't really say anything about who she is, other than what Randy thinks she is.)

Is this a problem?

There is a problem

The portrayal is more tricky. It's *funny*, perhaps because it throws away a lot of social convention. ("Waterhouse did some penis work of his own, got the clap, had it cured. They were like three-year olds who shove pencils in their ears, discover that it hurts, and stop doing it.")

But probably could be described as objectifying because no women are really characters. Eg. Waterhouse and Mary, he falls in love with her without really knowing her at all.

Someone convincingly described Amy as Randy's fantasy. "Fit exotic adventurous virgin besotted with him." And indeed I got the distinct idea I would be an idiot for doing anything other than serviley agreeing.

There isn't a problem

The absence of female characters is hardly unusual, all books can't have everything.

All it is is an accurate portrayal. No-one can live inside anyone else's head. The main characters are men and we get their ideas. All the main characters make sweeping and not especially derogatory generalisations against groups of all sorts, which is something that people do.

They're simply doing the same thing here. No-one said they were *right*, merely interesting to read about.

And Amy's (and Charlene's and Mary's) disproportionate besottedness might seem fake and disproportionate to us, looking out of Randy's head, but love affairs always do. *Everyone* says "I couldn't believe I was so lucky he/she liked me so much."

Comments

[simont]

When this came up on Monday, it also struck me as excessive to use the word "misogyny" for this. Even if one were to admit all of the charges, it hardly adds up to a hatred of women, merely a failure to manage to actually portray any of them very much. I'd be inclined to reserve the accusation of misogyny for a book which really portrayed its female characters in offensive ways, perhaps as totally docile adjuncts to the men, or, well, I can't actually be bothered to think of other examples but I'm sure there are at least three lurking just outside the reach of my be-bothered-ness. All we're seeing here, at most, is anogyny. (That's probably completely the wrong word, but I hope you get my point.)

Amy didn't strike me as that besotted. From where I was sitting, she spent a lot of the book not at all sure Randy was anything like what she wanted; she essentially challenged him to look inside himself and see if he could find the kind of person she was willing to have a relationship with. The accumulated evidence of actual besottedness, even by the end of the book, was that (a) she shagged him on one occasion, (b) she didn't immediately refuse when he mentioned marriage in the last chapter, and (c) she didn't say anything to her dad bad enough to cause him to demonstrate his ability to break all Randy's limbs with his little finger. Yet.

As for Waterhouse and Mary, that surely says more about him, in that he doesn't have what you might call a normal attitude to, well, anything at all really, because he fundamentally isn't a very normal person. That "anything at all" includes women and relationships, but that's no reason to single it out particularly.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I'm partly trying to convey someone else's idea here, so hopefully they will forgive me for trying, and for getting it wrong, and also show up and explain what I meant :) I agree with you more than not, I think.

Maybe "misogyny" is an exaggeration. But I think covers the description if not the intensity intended. The vibe I got was something like "The fact there aren't any female characters, and the way the ones there are are portrayed, isn't very positive, and I find this humorous if not bad."

...more as I think of it...

[celestialweasel.livejournal.com]

I found Stephenson's portrayal of Charlene and her friends immensely irksome, she was basically a straw (wo)man to allow Stephenson to attack various views.
By the way, I don't think that the chronology of Cryptonomicon makes sense - see http://celestialweasel.livejournal.com/129213.html#cutid1

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hi!

By the way, I don't think that the chronology of Cryptonomicon makes sense

I'm amazed it holds together as well as it does, really, I didn't get the impression he was going to spend any attention to that at all, so long as it sounded good :)

[chess]

I thought it was entirely reasonable that the women were portrayed (or not) as they did - the book is written in fairly tight third person, so the attitude of the main characters is going to come through, and their social circles are very male-dominated places.

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I would describe the writers treatment of women as "Helinlining". I react somewhat emotionally to it. It the portrayal of women as smart, and interesting but totally unlike men. (Or with as sex objects with brains- but still objectified) It sets my teeth on edge in way that out-and-out Misogyny doesn't.

Women are human beings with lives and minds of our own. We are not here solely to interact with men. I don't know last time I got into explaining this I totally failed, and everyone decided I was unfair to Helnlien. But I still hate it.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Eek. I've only read one Heinlein, but it seemed terrible in that area, much as you describe; it worries me they seem the same.

"It the portrayal of women as smart, and interesting but totally unlike men. Or with as sex objects with brains- but still objectified" Yeah, that sounds right. It's like it's paying lip service to something, but missing.

I think that might describe the problem. Except with Heinlein I get the feeling he actually does think like that, whereas with Stephenson I don't. One test is to imagine changing all the genders. I can't imagine the Heinlein I read holding up at all, it would just seem more ridiculous. But in Cryptonomicon, if all the men were women and vice versa, or if everyone were gay men, or lesbian women, I think it would still work.

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I don't think Cryptonomicon is as bad as say The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (which you should read if you can set your sexism alarm to stun). Also other Stephenson doesn't have this problem (well to my recollection. YT was pretty cool and totally her own person)


I like your test, though I'm not sure that it works for books not set in modern or futuristic times. (How does Jane Austin do in your mind?)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

which you should read if you can set your sexism alarm to stun

LOL. I'm not sure I can. Or rather, I must be able to, but Stranger in a Strange Land didn't endear me, so I'll get round to a recommended Heinlein at some point, I know he can be good, so I'd like to see it. But not right now :)

Also other Stephenson doesn't have this problem

Ooh, good point. In fact, many do -- I wasn't even really convinced by Eliza in the Baroque cycle, though I admit she was cool, and Hiro's girlfriend seemed like another example of a smart-but-love-interest. But you're right, YT was great (a genuine main character, one you imagine being rather than seeing, and not painted in terms of sex like the love interests are), so Stephenson certainly can do it. I guess that supports the his-characters-just-think-like-that-regardless-of-gender theory :)

I like your test, though I'm not sure that it works for books not set in modern or futuristic times.

Yeah, true. I don't know.