Isn’t it odd that Lewis is so often considered a flaming misogynist by today’s liberal scholars? His defense of traditional, even chivalrous roles for men and women usually draws shrieks from the modern elite. That this woman can somehow imagine Lewis on her side of the aisle is gobsmacking.
It seems like surely she never read The Abolition of Man? Lewis made it crystal clear in those lectures what he thought of taking humans and trying to remake them with scientific techniques.
Jane's choice to be barren, to prefer the academy to the nursery, is revealed by Merlin to have gigantic consequences. I wouldn't know what to say to someone (Lewis would) so blind as to miss the parallel between Jane losing to modern science and philosophy what would have been the greatest joy and honor of her life and "ze trans agenda", which prescribes sterility to all who fall into its clutches.
"In terms to the shape of the story, and the aesthetic battle Lewis is waging, the contrast between the women at St. Anne’s and the Fairy at Belbury is not meant to make you want, if you are a woman, to chuck it all and be a man. You are supposed to see that the Fairy is grotesque ..."
Yes.
I don't think this "Lewis scholar" got very far in zir actual reading of Lewis. If ze did read That Hideous Strength, I'm sure ze believes the Fairy to be a misunderstood and persecuted hero.
It doesn't take much reading in Lewis's works to know that he would be opposed to transsexuality, and, indeed, most of commonly accepted contemporary sexual ideas.
Lewis is a bit of a conundrum as to his writings vs. his private life. He was also an Irishman who served in an English army. I think it’s wise only to use his writing specifically as opposed to extrapolating other contexts such as Josh did. In that way, I do agree with the supposed scholar. That said, as you pointed out, Lewis does address this stuff in other writings. So. No for the quite used. But also no for the scholar.
Isn’t it odd that Lewis is so often considered a flaming misogynist by today’s liberal scholars? His defense of traditional, even chivalrous roles for men and women usually draws shrieks from the modern elite. That this woman can somehow imagine Lewis on her side of the aisle is gobsmacking.
It seems like surely she never read The Abolition of Man? Lewis made it crystal clear in those lectures what he thought of taking humans and trying to remake them with scientific techniques.
Jane's choice to be barren, to prefer the academy to the nursery, is revealed by Merlin to have gigantic consequences. I wouldn't know what to say to someone (Lewis would) so blind as to miss the parallel between Jane losing to modern science and philosophy what would have been the greatest joy and honor of her life and "ze trans agenda", which prescribes sterility to all who fall into its clutches.
"In terms to the shape of the story, and the aesthetic battle Lewis is waging, the contrast between the women at St. Anne’s and the Fairy at Belbury is not meant to make you want, if you are a woman, to chuck it all and be a man. You are supposed to see that the Fairy is grotesque ..."
Yes.
I don't think this "Lewis scholar" got very far in zir actual reading of Lewis. If ze did read That Hideous Strength, I'm sure ze believes the Fairy to be a misunderstood and persecuted hero.
It doesn't take much reading in Lewis's works to know that he would be opposed to transsexuality, and, indeed, most of commonly accepted contemporary sexual ideas.
Lewis is a bit of a conundrum as to his writings vs. his private life. He was also an Irishman who served in an English army. I think it’s wise only to use his writing specifically as opposed to extrapolating other contexts such as Josh did. In that way, I do agree with the supposed scholar. That said, as you pointed out, Lewis does address this stuff in other writings. So. No for the quite used. But also no for the scholar.