womanpower, Yes or No?

[Caelan Arendor]

Like many readers, I have often wondered why Robert Jordan depicted his world with such an overflowing matriarchy. It’s not only the Aes Sedai, endowed with the ability to channel, who assume an almost pathological ruler-like posture, but the female gender also dominates disproportionately within the political structures of Randland. I have reflected on this topic extensively and came to the conclusion—whether rightly or not, I cannot say—that Jordan deliberately sought to create a counterbalance to the toxic masculinity present in Abrahamic religions. I have never studied the Qur’an in depth, but it was enough for me to have to digest passages from the so-called Holy Scriptures. Would you like some examples?

 

Deuteronomy 22:13–21 (NIV summary):

If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, her parents must provide proof (the blood on the bed sheets). If the claim is true, she can be stoned to death; if false, the husband is punished.
This law treats women as property and places the burden of proof entirely on them, allowing capital punishment for perceived sexual misconduct.

Women not teaching in church

• 1 Timothy 2:11–12:

  “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
  Frequently cited as restricting women from leadership or teaching roles in early Christian communities.

  Ephesians 5:22–24:

  “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
  Women are instructed to obey their husbands, reflecting a patriarchal structure.

  1 Corinthians 11:3:

  “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
  Establishes male authority over women.

  God thus appears not merely as a proponent of slavery (as specified in my former blog) but as the embodiment of misogyny. The stoning of women—though recommended, indeed commanded, only in the so-called “Old Testament”—ignores the physiological realities of the female body, which numerous studies have documented: only about 48 percent of women bleed during their first sexual intercourse. The conclusion: 52 percent of women were innocently murdered at the command of the Creator God. I can already hear your objection: Yes, Jesus stood protectively before the adulterous woman, saying, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.” But hold on—he apparently had no problem with stoning, as long as it was carried out by the “righteous.”

 

In light of these facts, it seems entirely understandable—and even commendable—to me that Robert J. sought to provide a vigorous counterpoint.

 

As always, your most Sincerely Caelan

best 73, --.../...--

 

 

 

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

I don't think Jordan ever tried to create a matriarchy (except in Far Madding of course). He is quoted as trying to make all his societies as balanced as possible, and was shocked that others saw something different.

 

There is no reason to think that Jordan was trying to counter balance any sort of real world religion. He was writing a novel, not making a comment on religion or trying to push back in any way. 

 

So I'm afraid I would have to disagree that Jordan was making his books matriarchal or that they were in any way some kind of counter point to anything in the real world, much less religions.