Twitter Conversation With Brandon on Sexuality and Gender in the Wheel

[Luckers]

Ok, so Terez, Brandon and I along with some amazing other people had something of an epic discussion on Twitter about gender and sexuality in the Wheel of Time. Terez went to the awesome effort of transcribing it, and I thought you guys might enjoy it.

 

Read Terez's proper transcriptions which includes citation links and annotations here: The Theoryland Interview Database: Women and Men

 

Brandon: Also Re: NMN. [Or go here for more context.] I'll give you this point in regards to Rhuidean. No good reason for Avi to be nude when Rand/Mat don't have to be.

Brandon: As for the Aes Sedai ceremonies, they still feel very similar to sacred feminine ceremonies I've read before.

 

Terez: Sure, but most of the female nudity comes in the sweat tents and baths, etc. Though the baths in Fal Dara were egalitarian.

Terez: The descriptions of how Aviendha squats in the sweat tent, for instance, are really quite vulgar if you think about it.

Terez: But you don't see anything like that in the bath scene at Baerlon, for example. And even ritual nudity can get vulgar...

Terez: ...like Amys at the sister-bonding ceremony in WH. I mean, come on.

 

James Powell:There's certainly lots o female iffy WoT nudity, but also quite a lot of male nudity - especially Rand being ogled.

 

Terez: Yeah, Rand does get ogled once at least. But it's a matter of balance in my opinion.

Terez: Greatest Cadsuane line ever: 'I’ve already seen more of your hairless bottomcheeks than I wish to...'

Terez: '....but if you want to flaunt them in front of all six of us, perhaps someone will enjoy the show.' :)

 

James Powell: I'm not saying that the nudity issue is balanced - clearly, it's not. But at least *some* effort was being made.

 

Terez: Yeah, @BrandSanderson and I have gone round a bit on this already. We all recognize that some effort was made. Just saying...

Terez: ...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.

 

Seth Baker: Based largely upon the male characters being prudes. Doesn't that cut the other way for M/F sexual experience?

 

Terez: Not really, since the root cause is still RJ's brain. And Mat. Is far from a prude.

Terez: But we're at the same time not trying to make RJ out to be particularly sexist. He wasn't, especially for his Age.

 

James Powell: *nods* I'm more saddened by the almost complete lack of gay WoT characters - but that's just my personal bias.

Terez: No, it's not just your personal bias. It was RJ's. If there hadn't been lesbians you probably wouldn't care, eh?

 

James Powell: I actually found the whole issue of some women being "pillow friends", but then growing out of it and mooning over men, quite off.

 

Terez: Right, and the fact that the ones who don't grow out of it are for the most part evil bitches.

 

Lira Leirner: There are SOME implications of being gay being equally as normal, as outlined here http://ow.ly/4imXS

 

Terez: Oh, we know. But it's a half-hearted implication. Not even close to half really...

 

Luckers: Are you sure the nudity doesn't play a practical role in the ter'angreal. I note that in both the...

Luckers: ...Accepted rings and the final test the woman must be nude. Strange, two separate rituals taking the same form.

 

Lira Leirner: And Moiraine, too. I think it's probably the rings. The other testing ter'angral all require nakedness.

Lira: Aviendha doesn't have to be naked when she goes through the columns. Although I thought they could have told...

Lira: ...them to take off their clothes once they're in Rhuidean; don't see needing to taking them off before.

 

Terez: It's not a requirement of the ter'angreal according to them, but a sign of station (humbling).27

Terez: Also, with Aviendha, there was the practical aspect of giving up her cadin'sor.

Terez: It's the same with the raisings at the Tower - they never wear those clothes again IIRC.28

 

Brandon: I think Terez's argument is that women end up in these situations suspiciously more often than men.

 

Terez: Essentially yes. And that the description is more gratuitous. RJ could have chosen to write male nudity rituals.

 

Luckers: Mmm. True, but as I've argued in the past re: lack of gay men--we've been more exposed to all female...

Luckers: ...organisations and rituals. the one exception, I suppose, is the sweat tents, but again that occurred...

Luckers: ...organically. The Wise Ones were planning, and the sweat tents provided a social medium.

Luckers: BTW my original point was simply that Moiraine and Aviendha's nudity may have served a practical purpose...

Luckers: ...when going through the ter'angreal--Mat and Rand didn't go through that ter'angreal after all.

Luckers: It's strange that the Aes Sedai and Wise Ones separately built nudity rituals around similar ter'angreal. Necesary?29

 

Terez: Organically? You say that as if the scene wrote itself. RJ chose to use female sweat tent scenes, female nudity.

Terez: Even if the nudity does have a practical purpose that doesn't change the fact that he chose to write it that way.

Terez: He chose to develop the female organizations, and he chose to show lesbians outside those org.s rather than men.

 

Luckers: He chose to write the scene with Rand naked and being eyed by a dozen women too. So what?

 

Terez: Again, it's about balance. The 'suspiciously more often' bit. I feel you are being overly defensive about it.

 

Luckers: Are we to presume he did it lasciviously? To titillate. This is what I meant by it happening organically.

Luckers: I'm not being defensive--rather I don't see the problem. The female nudity was never vulgar... it just was.

 

Terez: As I said, it's clear enough he just enjoyed writing about naked women and lesbians more than he enjoyed...

Terez: ....writing about naked men and gay men. It's fanservice, but I don't think he thought of it like that.

 

Brandon: I've got to side with Terez on this one. It IS there. RJ did a LOT of things with great equality, but...

Brandon: ...when it came to nudity, he liked showing naked women more than men. I don't think it was vulgar, though.

 

Terez: Depends on your definition of vulgar. RJ was very good at avoiding vulgarity on the surface, but hinting at it.

 

Luckers: I still think that implies a little too much premeditation in the depiction, but I'm happy with your description.

Luckers: 'm not denying its presence, I'm denying the implications that the depiction is wrong. It flowed naturally...

Luckers: ..from the plot, and wasn't lascivious. I certainly don't think RJ worked to include it.

Luckers: Besides... if you wanna have a gay male character in aMoL I'd not complain. :)

 

Terez: Okay then. Do you think that RJ's insistence that there be no male nudity in the films was 'organic'?

Terez: That is where this little debate started, because it is essentially the proof of the point.

 

Brandon: Ha. Well (though I'm on your side) it could be argued that's a marketing decision.

 

Terez: LOL. Many things could be argued. Some arguments are more logical than others, though. :)

 

Luckers: I didn't know about this insistence. That's a little... weird, honestly. No, ok, a lot weird.

 

Terez: See, if you had actually read my debate with @BrandSanderson we wouldn't have to catch you up. ;)

 

Brandon: It's cultural, unfortunately. You can have female nudity and get a PG13. But not Male. Of course, that...

Brandon: ...leads us to the whole topfreedom debate, which ISN'T something I really want to get into.

 

Terez: It doesn't necessarily lead there. Again, I bring it up mostly for cultural awareness reasons.

 

Luckers: That's really stupid--but does make some sense. Also, I don't know if you remember Terez but for a while there was...

Luckers: ...some fairly rampant pockets of homophobia amongst the fandom--I had this discussion with @zemaille [Linda from the 13th Depository] at WorldCon.

 

Terez: There still is. It's mostly visible at tor.com - some staunch conservatives there.31

 

Linda: Oh yeah!

 

Terez: Which is unfortunate considering Leigh's views. There is a ruckus every time she brings it up.

 

Luckers: *nods* And as sad as it is to think that RJ was wary of this-its reasonable to avoid alienating your fans.

 

Terez: Well, if he was trying to avoid alienating THOSE fans he wouldn't have included lesbians either.

 

Luckers: Mmm. Lesbians have always been the safer homosexual depiction--which says alot about our society.

 

Seth Baker: In the end, you're indicting modern Western society, not RJ himself. He knew what you can't do and sell.

 

Terez: The first bit, yes. The second bit...I don't think that marketing was his only motive.

 

Seth: There're people who are not morally opposed to homosexuality, are fine with reading FF, but not MM for what it's worth.

 

Terez: And that is exactly the problem that is being addressed. Not judging RJ so much as ourselves.

 

Luckers: I hesitate to ask--but what's topfreedom. My mind went to an icky place. :S

 

Terez: LOL. I imagine it has to do with the fact that men can go shirtless but women can't.

 

Luckers: OH! That's... much nicer than what I was thinking. Hehe.

Luckers: I will say this, though--the complete lack of any sort of hetero-normative assumption32 in WoT gets RJ my vote.

 

Brandon: I wish this plane would let me use Tweetlonger to jump into this with more teeth.

 

Terez: Feel free to jump in with teeth later. We're not going anywhere. :)

 

Luckers: Yes. More teeth would be awesome! But we aren't going anywhere.

 

Brandon: This whole issue--homosexuality, conservatism, and the WoT--deserves a serious, thoughtful post.

Brandon: I just can't do that in 100 character bursts.

 

Terez: Cool. I am looking forward to it.

 

Luckers: I respect that Brandon. Still, post what you want--we understand its not your full argument.

 

Brandon: I will say that there IS a gay male in TofM, placed there on my part as I felt similar to you on this issue.

Brandon: I was going to tell you who it was, but figuring this out is the sort of thing you guys love, isn't it?

 

Terez: YAY! But of course, then you have to be careful not to make him too throw-away....

Terez: I considered Androl earlier, when I considered you might do this. lol. But I will think on it some more.

 

Luckers: Oh. Hey! Awesome. Ok, now we have to figure it out.

Luckers: Hopefully not Denezel or Hatch--their wives would be furious. :D

 

Brandon: Yes. I won't say if it's a new character or one I made a decision on, since there weren't notes either way.

 

Terez: And he seems to have ruled out Moridin, alas. But that would be sort of Dumbledore-y anyway.34

Terez: (And yes, I have read @BrandSanderson's thoughts on Dumbledore. Just saying. And we're not talking kids' books here.)

 

Luckers: I'm beginning to think it somewhat strange that I'm the one defending RJ the heaviest given your points...

Luckers: ... and the fact that I'm gay. Does that mean my loyalty to RJ defies reason, or that I'm so used to accepting...

Luckers: ...the dribbles that are depictions of homosexuality in fantasy? A disturbing thought.

 

Terez: Nah, not weird at all. You're pretty anti-activist in a lot of ways. Overcompensation, of course. ;)

Terez: I believe you are sensitive to the right-wing idea of the Gay Agenda.

Terez: So you seem to have a reluctance to champion your own causes too loudly, internally as well as externally.

Terez: In some ways it's a healthy reluctance. In some ways, it's sad that it is necessary.

 

Luckers: Well the gays are plotting world domination--we discussed this in our last High Council. But that's another conversation.

 

Brandon: You have good reason to defend him, Luckers. There ARE good examples. Arrela is one.

 

Terez: Seonid isn't bad either. Right? :D I think they might have been responses to the criticism.

 

Luckers: *nods* Arrela's love was beautiful. And your scene in tGS was heartbreaking.

 

Brandon: Yes, gay men are few and far between. But it could be much worse. See: Eddings, or worse, Goodkind and Newcomb.

 

Terez: I haven't read Newcomb, but yes, Goodkind's inclusion was of the worst sort.

Terez: Again, few people think RJ is all bad on this. But the fact that we are so appreciative of his rather biased...

Terez: ...and gratuitous inclusion shows how far behind we are as a society.

 

Brandon: Ha. Terez, you NEED to read Newcomb. If only because I want to see your head explode when you do.

 

Terez: LOL. Well, I will bring it along to JordanCon then, so you can observe. ;)

 

Brandon: It is an incredible experience. Goodkind times 1000 in the anti-feminist department. And it seems unconsious.

 

Luckers: Goodkind disturbs me on more levels than that, but I do take your point--it was what i meant by accepting dribbles.

 

Brandon: The thing is, [RJ] tried. And in the end, that's the most important thing can ask. The second is that they listen.

Brandon: And I do think RJ listened. I think he grew more sensitive on this subject as time passed.

 

Terez: Agreed, as I noted before re: the response to criticism. Again, it's more about us than about him.

 

Luckers: Interesting thought--about listening and changing. Kind of beautiful as well--that fans can give back to authors.

Luckers: That RJ touched on it at all was good--especially when we remember when he was writing these books.

Luckers: It does well to remember just how much the degree to which homosexuality is depicted has changed recently.

 

Terez: This is true. I just feel that now is the time to blow it out of the water, for that very reason.

 

Brandon: I'm curious if either of you read Rose of the Prophet, and what you thought of it. (Because of the gay male character.)

 

Terez: hmm, nope, haven't heard of it. I was told Deathgate was the only thing by [Weiss and Hickman] worth reading.

 

Luckers: Do you guys realise how much Rand's early arc resonates with a gay teenager?

Luckers: A young man who--through no choice of his own--finds himself to be something hated and feared.

Luckers: Something judged to be morally wrong though no moral choice has been made on his part.

Luckers: The whole arc--the 'men's pride, men's sin' resonated very heavily with me.

 

Brandon: That's FASCINATING, honestly. I'd never thought of that.

 

Terez: I bet RJ never thought of it either. :D But yes, it's a good comparison in many ways.

 

Luckers: All of this is why I never liked Mat in my first readings (when i was like 13). His reaction to Rand was...

Luckers: ... a little to close to home. And no I havn't read [Rose of the Prophet]--I will now though. (sorry for going on this tangent).

Luckers: It doesn't really matter to me if RJ meant the comparison--that he depicted something similar with such...

Luckers: ...visceral realism is the value of a great writer, because then the fans can take what they need from it.

Luckers: And in truth Rand's arc in dealing with it taught me how to. In fact its one of the reasons I love Cadsuane...

 

Terez: Because Cadsuane was Rand's faghag? No wait, that was Min! No, she was his beard...

 

Luckers: She doesn't feel sorry for Rand, or try to coddle him--she treats him like she would any other person...

Luckers: Her refusal to let Rand allow circumstance to victimize him was a powerful and subtle theme.

 

Terez: Indeed, that's why I like her. And why most people hate her. Because she should respect his authoritay!

 

Luckers: And I think it is the greatest service anyone in the books has done him. Even if Rand couldn't appreciate it.

Luckers: Re: Parallels between Rand's early arc and being gay...

 

"No, I can't. I mean . . . I didn't do it on purpose. It just happened. I don't want to - to channel the Power. I won't ever do it again. I swear it."

 

"You don't want to," the Amyrlin Seat said. "Well, that's wise of you. And foolish, too. Some can be taught to channel; most cannot. A few, though, have the seed in them at birth. Sooner or later, they wield the One Power whether they want to or not, as surely as roe makes fish. You will continue to channel, boy. You can't help it. And you had better learn to channel, learn to control it, or you will not live long enough to go mad. The One Power kills those who cannot control its flow."

 

"How am I supposed to learn?" he demanded. Moiraine and Verin just sat there, unruffled, watching him. Like spiders. "How? Moiraine claims she can't teach me anything, and I don't know how to learn, or what. I don't want to, anyway. I want to stop. Can't you understand that? To stop!"

 

[tGH; 8, The Dragon Reborn]

 

Luckers: That desperation is something I remember. Then this...

 

He paused, frowning, thinking things through. Finally, he said quietly, "Rand, can you channel?" Mat gave a strangled gasp. Rand let the banner drop; he hesitated only a moment before nodding wearily. "I did not ask for it. I don't want it. But. . . . But I do not think I know how to stop it."

 

[tGH; 12, Woven in the Pattern]

 

Luckers: and finally...

 

Mat hesitated, looking sideways at Rand. "Look, I know you came along to help me, and I am grateful. I really am. But you just are not the same anymore. You understand that, don't you?" He waited as if he expected an answer. None came. Finally he vanished into the trees, back toward the camp.

 

[tGH; 12, Woven in the Pattern]

 

Luckers: Potent scenes. Especially Mat's last lines. *shrug*

 

Terez: Yeah, I knew exactly what you were talking about as soon as you mentioned it. Perrin isn't much better.

Terez: Perrin is just not as thoughtlessly hurtful as Mat is. He's more the silent disapproval type.

 

Luckers: Though Perrin does realise the hypocrisy, and feel bad, so I didn't mind so much. :)

 

Linda: Yes, I appreciated Perrin's sympathy and tact - like when he said Rand is now a dreaded figure.

Linda: For instance he suggested that while running was understandable, it might not be possible.

 

Brandon: And...half of my in-flight wot reread time was sucked up by a great twitter conversation about gender and LGBT issues in the WoT.

 

Terez: Ohhhh, blame it on us will you! :p You knew as soon as you saw you had Twitter you weren't getting any work done. ;)

 

Luckers: Haha. Yeah--I've written a hundred and fifty words in three hours. Today was gonna be my productive day too. *sigh*/

 

Brandon: I have a new goal: to get Terez and Leigh Butler to do a feminist review of Newcomb's 5th Sorceress for Tor.com. How can I make this happen?

 

Terez: LOL. If you can talk Leigh into it, I'm so down with that.

 

Luckers: Lol. A gay, a feminist and a Mormon walk into a bar--whereupon they have a deep and meaningful conversation about sexuality in WoT.

 

Terez: LMAO. It's funny, though...I don't really think of myself as a feminist. Just an equalist.

 

Luckers: I was just being funny with the no jokes thing--the reality of us three having that conversation struck me.

 

Terez: Not to mention, you were raised Catholic, and I was raised Southern Baptist. Now we need a Muslim...

[Ace Sedai]

Interesting.

Honestly as much as I love the books the gender balance seemed forced{and consequently awkward}.

I agree with a lot of that^^^

BUT

to compare Mat and Perrin's nervousness around Rand to Homophobia is a stretch imo.

Men who channelled went mad and ended up killing folks.It was simply a fact that they believed true{and it was at the time}.

Who would be so accepting and understanding of their friend if they were likely to blow you to smithereens{as opposed to blowing you to smithereens}.

[Luckers]

Actually I wasn't comparing Mat and Perrin's reactions to homophobia, as I was comparing Rand's emotional situation to that which many young gay people suffer. Mat's reaction struck me hard, because the very nature of it is so... poignant--I had that conversation with a friend, even up to the 'you understand, don't you?' element.

 

But I do agree, the obvious practical differences of the dangers a male channeler represents his friends is where the parallel stops [i actually tweeted as much, though it didn't make it into Terez's transcript].

[FarShainMael]

...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Does ANY of this description of sexism apply to RJ?

 

What about saidin/saidar? Would you call that sexist?

 

Does RJ's concept of the Dark One's own True Power being available to either sex and also evil show homophobia?

[Luckers]

Calmly. This is for friendly debate, but if that changes I'll lock the thread. Now, the question here--is it inherently sexist to cleave to your own preferences in the depictions you relate.

 

My general feeling is that it is not. Whilst it might make Jordan's work not the most fair and balanced depiction of gender, I do not think it can be said that he was inherently sexist for this.

 

Thoughts?

[Ace Sedai]

...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Does ANY of this description of sexism apply to RJ?

 

What about saidin/saidar? Would you call that sexist?

 

Does RJ's concept of the Dark One's own True Power being available to either sex and also evil show homophobia?

Whoa easy horse.

We're all fans here and we are discussing a work of fiction{which naturally has shades of its writers likes/dislikes and biases,both conscious and subconscious} not the word of god .

[Terez]

But I do agree, the obvious practical differences of the dangers a male channeler represents his friends is where the parallel stops [i actually tweeted as much, though it didn't make it into Terez's transcript].

It's in there. Or, the Perrin bit is anyway. I should put the bit in there about the abrupt tweet though...I admit I was getting lazy there toward the end.

[Luckers]

Understandable. That's a lot of work. It's why I let you do it. :D

[FarShainMael]

...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Does ANY of this description of sexism apply to RJ?

 

What about saidin/saidar? Would you call that sexist?

 

Does RJ's concept of the Dark One's own True Power being available to either sex and also evil show homophobia?

Whoa easy horse.

We're all fans here and we are discussing a work of fiction{which naturally has shades of its writers likes/dislikes and biases,both conscious and subconscious} not the word of god .

 

My questions were not rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in answers, because RJ's whole WoTverse is based on balance, and in the case of the One Power, the balance between the sexes.

 

I have to admit, though, that I tend to get a trifle irritated when people misuse words like 'sexist'. (Another one which got under my skin a while ago, though not on this board, was a man who used the word 'delusion' when 'mistake' fitted better but sounded less emphatic.) Terez, I hope you take the time to study that article.

[David Selig]

Men are much stronger in the Power than women on average. Women has to submit to saidar to be able to channel, men has to fight for the control of saidin constantly and dominate it to be able to channel. Don't you see the obvious sexist implications here?

 

More on topic - really interesting transcript, good to see that Brandon agrees the often pointed flaws with the amount of female nudity and the lack of gay male characters in WoT.

[FarShainMael]

Men are much stronger in the Power than women on average. Women has to submit to saidar to be able to channel, men has to fight for the control of saidin constantly and dominate it to be able to channel. Don't you see the obvious sexist implications here?

 

No, I don't think there are any 'sexist implications'. Men and women are different, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. Sexism only becomes a factor when a person is put at a deliberate and unjustified disadvantage on account of their sex.

 

WoT-women surrender to the Power in order to control it. WoT-men fight it in order to control it. The objective is the same; only the method is different.

 

Just so you know, I am a wife, mother, and retired electronics engineer. Unfortunately, I have some experience of REAL sexism.

[Terez]

I didn't misuse the word. Just saying.

[Luckers]

I agree with FSM--depicting a skewed power-balance between genders, or working in gender-related differences in the worldbuilding is not necessarily a sexist depiction.

[Terez]

Oh, some things are open to interpretation for sure, and there are many different degrees of sexism. But I didn't misuse the word.

[Luckers]

My post was actually to David Selig. :)

[Terez]

My post was true all the same.

[Luckers]

Men are much stronger in the Power than women on average. Women has to submit to saidar to be able to channel, men has to fight for the control of saidin constantly and dominate it to be able to channel. Don't you see the obvious sexist implications here?

 

More on topic - really interesting transcript, good to see that Brandon agrees the often pointed flaws with the amount of female nudity and the lack of gay male characters in WoT.

 

Actually, let me put it this way--just because a depiction involves gender and has a potential negative slant--like, say, that the female average and top strengths in the power are lower than mens--does not make it a sexist depiction. For it to be sexist it would have to be because RJ believe women are weaker than men, and thus framed the depiction to relate that.

 

Yet for all the supposed weaknesses or negative points he built into his world for women, he created counter-balances and equalisers--it in fact is very clear through the strength of his female character that he holds no sexist misconceptions about the relative abilities of men versus women.

 

Skewed balance does not infer a prejudiced opinion. It can result from one, yes, but that doesn't mean that it is only the result of one. In this case, I think not.

[Terez]

Men are much stronger in the Power than women on average. Women has to submit to saidar to be able to channel, men has to fight for the control of saidin constantly and dominate it to be able to channel. Don't you see the obvious sexist implications here?

 

More on topic - really interesting transcript, good to see that Brandon agrees the often pointed flaws with the amount of female nudity and the lack of gay male characters in WoT.

 

Actually, let me put it this way--just because a depiction involves gender and has a potential negative slant--like, say, that the female average and top strengths in the power are lower than mens--does not make it a sexist depiction. For it to be sexist it would have to be because RJ believe women are weaker than men, and thus framed the depiction to relate that.

I'm not so sure that's true. RJ did make some comments about strength vs agility that are supposed to even out the scales, but this has a bit of a retcon feel, especially as it follows 'Hard Heads' in TSR. It's another example of RJ responding to criticism, which is good, but what was even the point of making men stronger in the Power than women in the first place? RJ said it was along the same lines as upper body strength, but why add one more disadvantage to women on top of the others? Even the bit about men needing women to link can seem a bit like a response to that criticism, coming as it does in TFOH. Hard to tell, since there is almost no extant documentation of fan criticism from that period.

 

I think that RJ realized as the books went on how his immersion in male-dominant culture affected his writing, but in the end we're still left with quite a few objections. The surrender/control thing is kinda offensive. It's not so major that we can't overlook it (obviously), but still...

[David Selig]

It's debatable, of course. But for me the depiction of the use of the One Power by Jordan certainly uses some really sexist stereotypes like "women are more submissive" and "they are weaker than men (not just physically)". It's magic, RJ could've made men and women equal in strength in the One Power on average, or even made the women stronger, and nobody would've said that's against biological laws. He decided not to, for whatever reason, probably plot convenience, it's his call, but combined with the whole "women submit, men dominate" thing in terms of dealing with saidin/saidar, it seems sexist to me. It's not a big deal for me and doesn't bother me much, but it's there IMO

 

I know that RJ said that women has an advantage in agility in using the power, but that's never showed in action in the books and as Terez said, feels like retcon.

[Luckers]

Ok, you see my problem with that is that its not universal. For this to be sexism it has to be a function of ignorence or prejudice on RJ's part--sexism is, in the truest sense, the act of judging someone purely by their gender. Or in this case, portraying someone with characteristics presumed as a result of their gender.

 

Yet it doesn't hold through. Can you think of any characters that exceed the likes of Amys or Sorilea in strength of self? Is the fanatic nature of the Whitecloaks less contemptable than the childish nature of the Aes Sedai? Does Rand's overprotective nature toward woman go unnoticed, or underided by other characters? No.

 

That these things can be percieved to have a negative slant is not enough. That he chose to make a parallel between strength in the Power and physical strength in terms of the strata between men and women is therefore not sexist, but merely a quirk of worldbuilding. By the same note, you made a point about submissiveness and RJ not showing the advantages making them simply retcon--what of the simple fact of linking?

 

These are not sexist depictions--they are depictions which shine a mirror to the real world--which is, after all, one of the main reasons the fantasy genre is successful. That it takes what is and shows it in a new way.

[FarShainMael]

That he chose to make a parallel between strength in the Power and physical strength in terms of the strata between men and women is therefore not sexist, but merely a quirk of worldbuilding.

 

Indeed. I don't have a problem with that one at all.

 

I would suggest that it would only become sexist if strength in the Power were presented in WoT as the main standard, or indeed the only standard, by which people were judged. ( < cynical > Much as strength in the bank balance is often presented here in the real world.. </ cynical >)

[Barid Bel Medar]

Ok, you see my problem with that is that its not universal. For this to be sexism it has to be a function of ignorence or prejudice on RJ's part--sexism is, in the truest sense, the act of judging someone purely by their gender. Or in this case, portraying someone with characteristics presumed as a result of their gender.

 

Yet it doesn't hold through. Can you think of any characters that exceed the likes of Amys or Sorilea in strength of self? Is the fanatic nature of the Whitecloaks less contemptable than the childish nature of the Aes Sedai? Does Rand's overprotective nature toward woman go unnoticed, or underided by other characters? No.

 

That these things can be percieved to have a negative slant is not enough. That he chose to make a parallel between strength in the Power and physical strength in terms of the strata between men and women is therefore not sexist, but merely a quirk of worldbuilding. By the same note, you made a point about submissiveness and RJ not showing the advantages making them simply retcon--what of the simple fact of linking?

 

These are not sexist depictions--they are depictions which shine a mirror to the real world--which is, after all, one of the main reasons the fantasy genre is successful. That it takes what is and shows it in a new way.

 

I hesitate to go into a full on debate about gender equality as it is a sensitve subject for many people, and I dont have the passion nor knowledge to actually argue about it. Its not a big deal for me.

 

 

I have to say though, I agree with Luckers 100%

 

I dislike the way people throw around terms such as sexism and racism - which are terms supposed to be grave and serious- for petty points and squabbles.

 

I dont deny the TECHNICALLITY of the use of the term, I just think the way people throw the terms about so freely really demeans the true sense of the word. Which is a very serious issue.

 

SO yes, Luckers, for me its 100% agreement, I see the saidar/saidin thing being more an observation of real world differences between men and women. (Generally, men are physically stronger, generally males are more domineering. Its not sexist its truth.) So I suppose you could call it stereotypical.

 

However, its not sexist. It would be if it said all women are weaker than men, or all are submissive. It does not. Like in real life, some women are stronger than the men (ie Lanfear, Graendal, Semirhage, Nynaeve) but when you put the strongest man against the strongest woman, the man is stronger of course (again, just like real life, the strongest male is stronger than the strongest female)

[Terez]

I dislike the way people throw around terms such as sexism and racism - which are terms supposed to be grave and serious- for petty points and squabbles.

 

I dont deny the TECHNICALLITY of the use of the term, I just think the way people throw the terms about so freely really demeans the true sense of the word. Which is a very serious issue.

It's a very serious issue which has its roots in very small issues like these - heteromale-biased (and therefore sexist) cultural norms. No one is putting RJ on trial here (for the thousandth time).

[Luckers]

Curiously, though, RJ has created a world with the opposite--perhaps not hetero, but definately a sense of female biased cultural norm. You can't even suggest that this is sexist on RJ's part either, as he shows through the depicition of Birgitte and Aviendha that women not born to the culture do not suffer the same cultural bias (i.e. that this female biased culture depiction is an intentional theme he worked into the series, resulting from the fact that within this culture the highest position is one held only by women--[amongst the Aiel, where the balance of power between the genders remained much more even, the female bias is absent]).

[Barid Bel Medar]

I dislike the way people throw around terms such as sexism and racism - which are terms supposed to be grave and serious- for petty points and squabbles.

 

I dont deny the TECHNICALLITY of the use of the term, I just think the way people throw the terms about so freely really demeans the true sense of the word. Which is a very serious issue.

It's a very serious issue which has its roots in very small issues like these - heteromale-biased (and therefore sexist) cultural norms. No one is putting RJ on trial here (for the thousandth time).

 

I dont think you understand what I am saying, nor do you care what it means aside from your own interpretation, so i will say only that I was not saying that this was an RJ trial, indeed as you say, you have pointed that out. In fact, iwas not even replying to you, but to David Seligs post, which was discussing the issue seriously.

 

In any case, I will say no more. I have given my opinion. I am not as well versed in the issue, nor am I particularly passionate about it so I dont wish to debate it, I know it will be fueled, something which i honestly just dont have the drive to do.