Sexism (split from book forums)

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Any time someone hears the word "sexism," or "discrimination," they immediately think of negative things. The words are negatively connotated.

 

But they aren't necessarily bad things. For instance, discrimination is an umbrella term. It could mean bigotry, or it could mean choosing the most skilled person for the job. One is a bad use, and another is a good use.

 

Sexism, as far as I see it, is not wholly wrong. Men cannot always do what women do, or do it to the same degree; and vice versa.

 

We are complementary parts: It's like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, we augment our weaknesses with the other person's strengths.

 

 

[Zardi]

There's copping out, and then there's politely telling someone they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Telling me to "read some psychology" is a polite way of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe you meant it to be polite, but it didn't come across that way. You didn't even refer me to a specific book or a specific psychologist. It sounded like you just didn't feel like making the effort to convince me. It's fine to back out of a debate for any reason, but at least admit that that's what you're doing.

 

I'm not going to distill years of research into a post to someone that obviously has made up their mind and doesn't have the background knowledge to create a frame of reference for what I'm saying. Nor am I going to engage in a pissing contest over other people's ignorance.

Insulting people you don't know just makes you look ridiculous. I'm actually very flexible and have no problem changing my mind when I've been convinced of something. I partially conceded to your point about Ilyena, because you're right that she has an effect, indirectly, through LTT. That is part of Rand's madness. About this all being related to his mothers, however, you have not yet convinced me. Could it have some effect? Certainly, and I believe I conceded that. However, you didn't explain to me why, in Rand's case specifically, his mothers are having such a huge effect on his mental state that you can just toss aside the fact that Rand was raised to never hurt women, and that he is going mad. All you presented were a few timing coincidences, which really worked both for and against you. They were not enough to convince me, considering that Rand rarely thinks of his mothers. He spends more time thinking about his bondees (there's the Ilyena connection), his list, and Tam than he does about his mothers.

 

When does Rand, specifically Rand, think that he was responsible for the deaths of his mothers? If Rand thinks he is killing his mothers all over again whenever he kills a woman, then why was he able to kill that darkfriend in TDR? See, if his entire attitude is caused by his mothers, then at that point, Rand would have equated killing the darkfriend to killing Kari, and he wouldn't have been able to do it.

 

I'm aware that some people whose mothers die in childbirth feel they are responsible. What does this have to do with Rand? Kari died of an illness when he was 5. As far as we know, that has nothing to do with Rand. So why would he, at age 20+, feel that he is responsible for it? Furthermore, Tigraine did not die from childbirth, she died from her wounds (as either Tam or Moiraine tells us). As far as I remember, the prophecies just say that Rand must be born of a maiden, on Dragonmount. They don't say the Maiden has to die (but if I'm remembering that wrong, let me know).

 

Is it possible that someone in Rand's situation would blame himself for Tigraine's death? Sure it is. But does Rand, specifically Rand, think that? Please show me the evidence in the books.

 

Frankly, I didn't care to bother, and no amount of mudslinging credibility attacks is liable to make me change my mind.

That's rather hypocritical, don't you think? You're the one claiming that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. You're the one who called me ignorant. I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to defend your claim. If you'd rather not bother, then that's fine. Just say so. But calling me ignorant as a way of backing out of the argument is immature, ineffective, and is just the sort of mud-slinging you claim to condemn.

 

Interesting theory, but I disagree. The men would die for women because they're more...disposable? Nah. Human life is human life.

I agree with you...but strictly from a reproductive standpoint, we're both wrong. More females than males are needed to continue the species.

[Mashiara O Aan.a--ein]

So many people keep referring to special "strengths" and "weaknesses" of men and women, and saying that we all complement each other and so on, but I haven't seen any examples of this besides the blanket statement that men tend to be physically stronger. Oh, and the reproductive aspects. If those are the only arguments (unless I missed something), it's not a very solid stand.

 

By the way, when/how did this thread split?

[Zardi]

Hehe. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to describe where they're coming from (or, my understanding of it, at least).

 

I'm not sure where it split off, either. I think it was from a Rand craziness thread? That's where the separate argument with BrainFireBob came from, I believe.

[walkerhound]

Just because something has always been done some way doesn't mean it is right.

 

The father steps in to defend the family? Would any mother protect her children less?

 

well that's true but i do think you have to be careful about discounting something that has a lot of time behind it.  just because something's old don't mean it's wrong ether.   

 

as to father's and mothers protecting/giving up there lives for there children, it's not an ether or thing.    however it dose sort of come to a....say devising of duty's.  father is expected to be the first to step up and face the what ever while mother's first action is to get the kid's out.  then if said danger then (once it's finished with the father) chaches up with them mom takes her turn to try and stop/slow it down while the kid's escape.

 

tam's actions during the troloc attack on the farm in EOTW are a good example.  he wasn't so much trying to defeat the troloc's (all i'm sure he gave it his best) he was manly trying to slow 'em down and distract 'em so rand could get away.

 

 

 

 

i think deep down a lot of this sentiment of men dieing for/instead of women is because of men ultimately being the "disposable" gender.   If nothing else form a biological standpoint, the number of healthy female’s need to have a stable (to say nothing of a growth potential) population is much higher than the number needed of healthy males.   You lose x% of men in a year to what ever dangers are out there no big deal, ya'll make 'em up.   You lose X% of woman in a year....you got a problem.

 

Interesting theory, but I disagree. The men would die for women because they're more...disposable? Nah. Human life is human life.

 

i don’t' mean it's something overt, not like dad's are sitting there son's down at some point and saying "hay just so ya'll know you guy's are worth less than your sisters and mom".  more like one of those back brain things like being afraid of snakes or the dark.

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

So many people keep referring to special "strengths" and "weaknesses" of men and women, and saying that we all complement each other and so on, but I haven't seen any examples of this besides the blanket statement that men tend to be physically stronger. Oh, and the reproductive aspects. If those are the only arguments (unless I missed something), it's not a very solid stand.

 

By the way, when/how did this thread split?

 

 

I'll try to list a few examples, though keep in mind that this is a generalization, and nothing more.

 

Men:

Physical

-- virile, athletic, strong, brave. Unconcerned about appearance and aging;

 

Functional

-- breadwinner, provider for family as much as mate

 

Sexual

-- sexually aggressive, experienced. Single status acceptable;

 

Emotional

-- unemotional, stoic, don't cry;

 

Intellectual

--logical, intellectual, rational, objective, practical,

 

Interpersonal

-- leader, dominating; disciplinarian; independent, free, individualistic; demanding;

 

Other Personal Characteristics

-- success-oriented, ambitious, aggressive, proud, egotistical; moral, trustworthy; decisive, competitive, uninhibited, adventurous.

 

Women:

 

1. Communication skills.

 

Girls speak sooner and are better at articulating and finding the right word rapidly.

 

2. People skills.

 

Women are also better at reading emotions in faces and deciphering postures, gestures and voice inflections.

 

3. Web thinking.

 

Women gather more data from their environment and construct more intricate relationships between the information.

 

Example: "An employer who couldn't decide whether to give a raise to a young man or a young woman called both into his office. He said, 'Here's a business problem. Which solution would you choose: A, B or C?' Both went home and thought about it. The following morning the young man walked in and said, 'I'd choose solution B.' The young woman said she would choose solution A if she wanted to solve problems X and Y; solution B if she wanted to solve problems W and Z; and so on."

 

4. Consensus-building skills.

 

Women are skilled negotiators who focus on creating win-win situations and harmonious collaborations.

 

5. The drive to nurture.

 

Self-explanatory

(Including the need or desire to balance work and family.)

 

 

Sorry if this seems thrown together, I'm pressed for time. I'll try to post more later.

[BrainFireBob]

Oh, cite the actual neurological research.

 

Men: More aggressive, greater upper body strength, typically greater overall athleticism. Greater ability to consider things with one portion of the brain at a time- this has its ups and downs, leading to an overall greater affinity for traditional math and science, but decreased general aptitude dealing with more complicated cross-disciplinary issues.

 

Women: Minds are capable of tracking far more detail simultaneously. Increased ability with fine motor skills. The inverse of the second sentence about men: Increased ability to consider things with several portions of the brain simultaneously, this has its ups and downs: Decreased affinity for traditional math and science instruction in general (since it's strictly one portion of the brain, it seems counter-intuitive, apparently), increased affinity for cross-applying information. Greater ability to detect physical nuance due to some increased/more complicated development of the visual- and aural-cortices I'm failing to remember the details of at the moment.

 

Interestingly, you see a reversal of trends with male and female dropouts when you "reverse" traditional math and science classes- the more holistic and less strict sequential it's structured, the more females stay in and the more males drop out. While these things aren't absolutes for all men and all women, they are indeed trends that even a simple internet search should reveal the research on.

 

To the personal post:

 

I was busy. Still am busy. So I was indicating to do some basic research, because even elementary, general research should have revealed the information gaps. Specificity was of no benefit. My second post was entirely at Ealdur, who tried to claim I couldn't back what I was saying. I certainly could, if I had any damn time right now.

 

I base my claim to Rand and mother issues on two pertinent facts: The timing of his issues with the Maidens et al, which began not in the Stone but after learning of Tigraine, well before starting his list- a list he was able to retro-actively add their names too!- and Jordan's own love affair with women in general, especially his mother and aunts, which he's mentioned on several occasions. The characters reflect the author. Rand also doesn't have clear memories from before five- few of us do, apparently- so saying he was already five and therefore should have no guilt holds no ground in that regard alone, nor does it hold ground when you consider that children into their teens blame themselves for things like divorces. Rand has a very obvious guilt complex regarding Kari Ba'alzamon uncovered in Eye of the World. Learning about Tigraine, and then learning even *more* about Tigraine, cements that. Rand's own thoughts on the matter betray him- "how many had died, how many lives had changed, just so that he could be borne?" This cuts at him. Yet he rarely reflects on the men whose lives were lost for him at all, and even then there's little regret.

[entropic]

It's not that men cannot cross-analyze well, it is just that we wish to make everything simpler for everyone.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

My second post was entirely at Ealdur, who tried to claim I couldn't back what I was saying.

 

Sorry about that, BrainFire. I didn't intend for it to come across that way. I was a little short, admittedly. Besides that, as I mentioned before, what I said was intended to convince you to back up your argument--not that I thought you couldn't, mind.

 

It's simply that I thought that with your personal experience, you would have a unique insight into the situation, and be able to add a whole new dimension to the discussion. Granted, you may have "years of information" on the subject, and might think it a tedious task to write everything. And if that is what I appeared to ask, I apologize. I simply meant to request a small portion of your knowledge.

 

And if you are pressed for time, then it was doubly inconsiderate of me, though I assumed that you had time for discussion after posting initially.

 

That's about all I have to say on that matter, and hopefully you understand.

 

[Zardi]

I was busy. Still am busy. So I was indicating to do some basic research, because even elementary, general research should have revealed the information gaps. Specificity was of no benefit.

Everyone's busy with something. But if you just didn't have time to find sources, then you could have at least said, "I don't have time to do this myself, but look up work by X psychologist," instead of insulting my intelligence and my personality. I'm not sure why you say that basic research would have been enough. I've taken a general, introductory psychology class, and I've taken adolescent psychology. I assumed you were referring to some very specialized research, because otherwise your argument was nothing more than, "many children blame themselves for their parents' deaths." Well, sure, many do. That's common knowledge, and it doesn't require reading about psychology to learn that. But not all children blame themselves, especially once they get older. It's a trend, not a rule. Does Rand blame himself? That's the sort of evidence I wanted from you, and all you did was condescendingly tell me to read some psychology.

 

I base my claim to Rand and mother issues on two pertinent facts: The timing of his issues with the Maidens et al, which began not in the Stone but after learning of Tigraine, well before starting his list- a list he was able to retro-actively add their names too!- and Jordan's own love affair with women in general, especially his mother and aunts, which he's mentioned on several occasions. The characters reflect the author.

Interesting point about RJ. As far as Tigraine's connection with the Maidens, I already conceded that if Rand's obsession was with Maidens only, then your theory would completely explain his behavior. As it stands, it isn't only Maidens he is obsessed with. So while your argument is valid with regard to the Maidens, I don't think it explains his reluctance to hurt someone like Lanfear. That started before he knew about Tigraine, and is the result of his growing madness (specifically, LTT seeping through).

 

Rand also doesn't have clear memories from before five- few of us do, apparently- so saying he was already five and therefore should have no guilt holds no ground in that regard alone, nor does it hold ground when you consider that children into their teens blame themselves for things like divorces.

Perhaps I didn't word my objection very well, but I didn't say Rand should hold no guilt, I was asking you what evidence you have that he, specifically, feels guilty about Kari's death. This guilt thing is a trend, not a rule, so considering we've never seen Rand think that he is responsible for Kari's death (as far as I remember), I was asking you why you are so sure that this is the case.

 

Is it possible, given trends in human behavior, that Rand considers himself responsible for Kari's death? Sure it is. Is it necessarily the case? No, especially considering the lack of evidence. For all we know, Rand has accepted by now that Kari died of some freak illness and he had nothing to do with it. I can accept it as a possibility that he feels responsible (in fact, I never denied it as a possibility), but I cannot accept it as fact without more canon evidence.

 

Rand has a very obvious guilt complex regarding Kari Ba'alzamon uncovered in Eye of the World.

And this is great evidence that Rand may feel responsible for Kari's supposed capture by the Dark One. But why does this mean he necessarily feels responsible for her death? Again, I'm not saying he definitely doesn't feel guilty, I'm looking for evidence of why you are so sure he must feel guilty.

 

My second post was entirely at Ealdur, who tried to claim I couldn't back what I was saying.

Maybe you were talking to him, but the following quote from you appears to be an insult to my personality and my intelligence:

I'm not going to distill years of research into a post to someone that obviously has made up their mind and doesn't have the background knowledge to create a frame of reference for what I'm saying. Nor am I going to engage in a pissing contest over other people's ignorance.

You said "other people's ignorance" in a post directed at Ealdur, which makes it seem like you are referring to me. In fact, it seems like that entire quote was about me since you had just finished telling me to "read some psychology" to gain background knowledge. Did I misinterpret?

[Mashiara O Aan.a--ein]

Sorry Ealdur, I disagree with most of your man-woman stereotypes

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

No need to apologize. I didn't come up with that entirely by myself.

 

But let me put emphasis on this: It is less of a rule, and more of a trend (to paraphrase what Zardi said).

 

Perhaps your experiences may make many of these stereotypes invalid. That could be.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that the properties of men that I listed are properties of masculinity, and that the properties of women I wrote about are properties of femininity, and that men can be effiminate and women masculine. There is considerable overlap.

 

I wouldn't expect you to know of one person who is the perfect stereotype of the female, or of the male, because everyone has a little of both qualities in them. But on the whole, those are attributes and skills generally found in males/females.

 

I'll research the idea further and post more, and possibly cite sources to add credibility to my post.