Foz Meadows: The Problem of R. Scott Bakker

People were on at me for years to read the R. Scott Bakker trilogy The Darkness That Comes Before, and it looked very interesting to me so I picked it up and gave it a try.  I found the books mostly to be dry and plodding, ponderous and pretentious and in their portrayal and treatment of women, to be vile.  And now author Foz Meadows, prompted by some comments Bakker made about his work, has crafted an article breaking down exactly where Mr. Bakker's analysis falls apart:
The level of doublethink here is staggering, and yet I can just about parse his (incredibly twisted) logic. Seemingly, Bakker thinks that male violence, and particularly sexual violence, is both innate and inevitable. His aim, at least in part, is to convince his male readers likewise, showing them their own dark side in order to make them uncomfortably aware of its dangers. As entities, women who triumph over, alter or otherwise subvert this reality are completely unrealistic, because no amount of hope or belief will ever change man’s bestial nature, and therefore women will always be oppressed. Any story or statement to the contrary is damaging to feminism, because it gives women an unrealistic view of their prospects in life. Instead, it’s better to focus on making men aware of their innate capacity for evil, so that they can try and rein it in.
The full article is HERE and Mr. Bakker has arrived to address the article, so the comments are blowing up a bit.