Thread by @KatinOxford

When I have a moment today, we’re going to discuss C.S. Lewis, misogyny, and the false notion that he hated women.

As some of you saw last night, I popped off a little at someone who deemed C.S. Lewis a "monstrous misogynist" and bigoted homophobe.

The Lewis quote in question was a particularly bad take in "Preface to Paradise Lost".

I'm not a Milton scholar, so I'm not going to defend it. But I am a Lewis scholar, and I do feel the need to clarify a couple of things.

My initial reaction last night was frustration rather than engagement, and it shouldn't have been.

Mainly, because when you've studied Lewis & gender for a long time (say, all of your adult life), it is incredibly grating for someone to dismissively & simplistically say Lewis=misogynist & go on their merry way.

It's not that simple. It never is. Academics should know this.

My roommate wisely pointed out to me last night--several times--that it's not my job to argue with everyone about Lewis and gender on Twitter.

People can pay me to come speak or look up my papers or buy my book. I have work to do. Paid work.

But since a bunch of people follow me for Lewis content, I do want to address it.

Because it's gonna come up again and again, no matter how many papers I publish on it. And it's disheartening when I see comments like "the more I learn about Lewis the less I like him".

So I try to strike a balance with C.S. Lewis as an academic. As much as I love his books and writing, I don't want to fall into the trap of idolizing. That does him no favors. He had brilliant, incisive, excellent things to say; he also had problematic, ignorant things to say.

He was human. If we refuse to read him with nuance, our reading of his work becomes generalized, simplistic, and trite. That goes for those who see no problems in his work as well as those who see nothing but problems.

Now first--for the homophobia charge--I'm not going to say much about that, because Lewis was a product of his time, and much of that time was intensely bigoted, homophobic, and generally nasty towards queer people.

I'm not LGBTQ, so it's not my lane.

I do think Lewis was a good deal kinder than some of his contemporaries--burning correspondence from queer friends to keep their jobs and livelihoods safe, his closest friend Arthur Greeves was gay (and likely in love with Lewis), etc.

But this does not excuse him. It is there.

Now the misogyny charge, which IS my lane.

(And I won't tell you how irritating it is for men to tell me what is and isn't misogynistic. You get it from both Lewis lovers and Lewis haters and it is equally insufferable.)

No. I don't think Lewis was a misogynist.

I agree with Dr. Kate Manne's assessment of misogyny, that misogyny is not just a simple hatred of women, but an ideology that is rooted in controlling and punishing women who challenge patriarchal norms.

If Lewis believed this ideology, if his worldview reflected a hatred of women who challenge the established order, why do so many of his female characters subvert and challenge patriarchal norms?

Furthermore, I distinguish misogyny and sexism. Not every scholar does.

I believe misogyny is a systemic devaluation, denigration, and disgust towards women. (I quote Dr. Maria Klotz here.)

Sexism often INCLUDES misogyny, but it is not limited to it.

They are related terms, but they are not synonymous. I would argue that misogyny is more malicious.

Sexism can branch out into something called "benevolent sexism", which you find a lot in theological studies of gender.

Lewis falls into "benevolent sexism" quite a bit.

(Vox has an excellent breakdown) vox.com/identities/201…

Benevolent sexism says, "well women are just more delicate, just more emotional, so they're better nurturers."

This type of statement is sexist, but it's not rooted in misogyny, in a hatred of women.

It's problematic, it's not less of a problem by any means. Both are bad.

If Lewis were a misogynist, his fiction would reflect that. He would not have had Lucy the Valiant marching into battle in Horse & His Boy, or Aravis running away from an arranged marriage.

Nor would he have had Susan show up Trumpkin in an archery contest in Prince Caspian.

In fact, Lewis has his female characters repeatedly challenge their established social orders in multiple texts.

Not always--his lapses of benevolent sexism are readily apparent. But so are his moments of surprising subversion.

Especially with Queen Orual.

Orual, from Lewis' final fiction work (if you don't count Letters to Malcolm) was written in first person from a female perspective. You might think this was a recipe for disaster, but Orual is complex, dynamic, flawed, and one of his most nuanced and intricate characters.

Orual is born in a heavily misogynistic culture (and I use the word misogynistic purposefully) and defies her social structure, despite being considered worthless to her culture as an ugly woman.

Orual becomes an intelligent warrior queen & "Till We Have Faces" explores her life, her selfishness, her mistakes, and her redemption in one of the most complicated & engaging narrative arcs ever.

Lewis accomplished this due to collaboration w/ his wife, Joy Davidman.

A misogynist is unlikely to accept help from a woman or want her to share credit in the work. (Joy Davidman refused to be listed as a co-writer, believing her name would detract from sales.)

A misogynist would not have supported and funded several women's educations. But Lewis did and was extraordinarily kind and engaging to his female students.

Furthermore, his later relationships with women did help tone down on some of his earlier sexism.

And to be completely frank with you, if Lewis were as misogynistic as people believe nowadays, there is no way in hell Joy Motherfucking Davidman would have fallen in love with him and married him.

This doesn't absolve him from his moments of sexism. "Ministering Angels" will always be a terrible short story. I will always be irritated by the conclusion of Jane Studdock's arc in "That Hideous Strength". There is plenty to critique.

But what I want is to stop the bad faith critiques--the Pullman-esque bile and uninformed conclusions of the man's life and work.

Everyone on Twitter wants to talk about his early fascination with erotic flogging, no one wants to talk about how many women he helped support.

When you ask "was C.S. Lewis a misogynist?" honestly, you're asking the wrong question.

When you ask "did he hate women?", you're not looking at what his female friends and students said about him.

Lionizing and demonizing are both the wrong ways to look at C.S. Lewis.

Now. Assuming I ever get my damn nonfiction book finished, by reading this thread, you are all contractually obligated to buy it, sorry I don't make the rules. (Except this one.)