Not the Guys fault!

[Lord Nik]

Ok... In Randland we are constantly hearing the girls complain about the guys. Such as Elayne going on about how Rand made everything in Andor so difficult.

 

After he de-Forsakened the City.

Created order.

 

And Elayne blah blah blah's Rand incompetence at saving the world.

And so many girls (mainly ELAYNE) always going on about how guys make things ridiculous when the guys are the ones saving the day.

 

This thread is mainly here to Rant about all the times girls have done things like that when the GUYS are just being awesome... Why do they do that!

[Roxinos]

...We also hear plenty of complaints about the girls coming from the guys in the books. It's a two-way street, and it's bad enough that it's in the books. I don't think we need to add to it here.

[RobertAlexWillis]

The worst has to be when Mat rescued the girls in the Stone and they treated him like a piece of crap.  I understand why they did it, but that doesn't make it in any way right or cool.  It was so bad that other women actually got them to apologize.

 

The stuff in Andor ... Elayne has to take that position, even internally, to create and maintain her own political power base.  It's political, not personal ... Elayne loves Rand, but the Queen of Andor has to create the right distance with the Dragon Reborn.

 

They still haven't had the chance to really talk about what he did while he was in Andor, unless they did it that one night they were together, and I think they were too busy then.  If they do, I actually think they can reach an understanding on those issues.

 

But, in general, women and men don't communicate well because words and other symbols have different meanings.  There is a classic scene in The Break Up when Jennifer Anniston says "I want you to want to do dishes!" and Vince Vaughn, completely agog, replies "Why would I want to do dishes?"

 

For her, wanting to do the dishes represented his commitment to their relationship.  For him, wanting to do the dishes represented actually enjoying the physical act of washing bits of food off of dishes.  They were using the same words to talk about two different things.

 

Jordan is masterful in portraying this in his male/female interactions.

[Roxinos]

Elayne has to take that position, even internally,...

 

I'm not certain I agree with that assertion. I understand it, and I would generally agree that it would make things easier for her and make her position stronger, but I'm not certain that it is either a necessity or something which was done out of necessity. Elayne's position on Rand in relation to Andor has never shown a hint of self-delusion or evidence of an internal struggle. When she first heard of how Rand was keeping the throne for her, she instantly leapt to the conclusion of "how dare he?"

[Eleint]

You have to remember that for the past few thousand years women have been on top.  It's kind of the opposite of RL up to the rise of women in the past century or so.

 

Men have been the disenfranchised.  Even in places like the Two Rivers where there's a Village Council and the Women's Circle the WC interferes with the VC but heaven help the men if they try to interfere in the WC.  Much the same with Aiel -- Wise Ones interfere with the Clan Chiefs but heaven help if they do the reverse.

 

The basic premise in the series is that no one, when 'on top' are good.  Women as well as men.  Women are just showing the same sort of short sightedness that men showed throughout history in real life.

 

Thus, Elayne and Egwene (who I actually think is worse) are predetermined to assume that the men can't handle themselves.  They will have to acknowledge they're WRONG eventually -- especially now that Saidin's cleansed.  I daresay the fact that for the first time in millenia, men can use the Power cleanly is going to cause a major societal shakeup.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm not certain I agree with that assertion. I understand it, and I would generally agree that it would make things easier for her and make her position stronger, but I'm not certain that it is either a necessity or something which was done out of necessity. Elayne's position on Rand in relation to Andor has never shown a hint of self-delusion or evidence of an internal struggle. When she first heard of how Rand was keeping the throne for her, she instantly leapt to the conclusion of "how dare he?"

 

That is my point.  As an absolute monarch, she has to maintain that she is the sole source and repository of her power.  If she admits that Rand was helpful, she weakens her position.  Especially because he actually was helpful.

 

Its one of the reasons that absolute dictatorships (which a real monarchy is) are a bad idea, as governmental systems.  To be effective, they require the monarch to be a sublime egotist.

[Roxinos]

If she admits that Rand was helpful, she weakens her position.  Especially because he actually was helpful.

 

I admitted I understand all of that.

 

I just expect some amount of cognitive dissonance and there is none on her end.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I just expect some amount of cognitive dissonance and there is none on her end.

 

It is the lack of cognitive dissonance that makes her such a good Queen.  Thats what the second part of my post was about.

[Roxinos]

I'm not questioning her abilities as a Queen. I'm questioning her character. Her "sublime egotism," as you so graciously put it (no sarcasm), is a function of many of the women of Randland. It goes in the other direction as well, of course, as Randland seems to have many of the failings of both men and women in the real world amplified to a large extent.

 

I agree that it makes her a good queen. I disagree that it should be just waved off. I demand cognitive dissonance.

 

Of course, I'm not going to get it. :D

 

And sorry, I didn't read the second part of your post:

 

Its one of the reasons that absolute dictatorships (which a real monarchy is) are a bad idea, as governmental systems.  To be effective, they require the monarch to be a sublime egotist.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Absolute monarchy and monarchy are entirely different beasts. Even before the supremacy of the Parliament in England was established, the Parliament and the Monarchy coexisted quite peacefully (relatively). The balance of power merely shifted towards the Parliament over time. That, of course, gives credence to your concept of a monarchy as absolutist or nothing, but there is a distinction that you can't just ignore. A monarchy does not have to be absolutist to be a valid governmental system.

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Even before the supremacy of the Parliament in England was established, the Parliament and the Monarchy coexisted quite peacefully (relatively).

 

-guffaw-

 

Um ... Oliver Cromwell disagrees.

 

That, of course, gives credence to your concept of a monarchy as absolutist or nothing, but there is a distinction that you can't just ignore. A monarchy does not have to be absolutist to be a valid governmental system

 

England, after 1215, was not really a monarchy.  In my opinion.  But this is back to a difference in definition, so we aren't likely to resolve it.

 

What I will say is that it was most definitely not a monarchy in the same way that Andor is a monarchy.  So, in an assessment of Elayne's requirements for effectiveness, England doesn't enter into it.

[Roxinos]

Um ... Oliver Cromwell disagrees.

 

Bad example. Oliver Cromwell appeared after two kings who attempted to acquire absolute power in England modeled after the absolutist French monarchy. Of course he would disagree, the kings he followed were bastard coated bastards with bastard filling who most certainly do not fall under my description of a relatively peaceful coexistence with Parliament.

 

England, after 1215, was not really a monarchy.  In my opinion.  But this is back to a difference in definition, so we aren't likely to resolve it.

 

Agreed.

 

What I will say is that it was most definitely not a monarchy in the same way that Andor is a monarchy.

 

Agreed.

 

So, in an assessment of Elayne's requirements for effectiveness, England doesn't enter into it.

 

I was making that note as an aside, not in reference to our discussion about Elayne at all. Sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear. Bringing England into the mix was primarily to discuss your definition of a monarchy, which, quite frankly, I find very narrow-minded.

[RobertAlexWillis]

You said:

 

Even before the supremacy of the Parliament in England was established, the Parliament and the Monarchy coexisted quite peacefully (relatively).

 

Sorry, but whether the kings that Oliver Cromwell were bastards or not, the conflict between the Roundheads and Cavaliers is a factual example of them not "coexisting quite peacefully" ... even "relatively."

 

That entire conflict exemplifies the reasons why I define monarchy the way I do.  If the King/Queen isn't the sole source and arbiter of the law, then he/she isn't really the ruler; whoever determines the content of the body of law that can override the King/Queen is the actual ruler.  If you try to have it both ways, the parties will inevitably clash, with one of them being destroyed or reduced to figurehead status.

[Roxinos]

You're using an outlier like that period of time as an example against a general statement which included room for such outliers?

 

We're talkin' a period of some 700 years of history (roughly...), and you're referring to one period encompassing four kings and one Lord Protector?

 

If you try to have it both ways, the parties will inevitably clash, with one of them being destroyed or reduced to figurehead status.

 

I don't disagree. However, before one is reduced to figurehead status, they coexist. Monarchies exist in many forms. To see only the extreme of absolutism as a monarchy is just kind of silly. If that's the case, then what would you refer to the governmental system from the Magna Carta to the time when Parliament established complete dominance? It's not a monarchy under your system. In fact, under your concept, the only monarchy which ever existed were the Feudal kings (I'll even throw in Russian feudal kings which ranged for a MUCH longer period than anywhere else) and the French absolute monarchs.

[RobertAlexWillis]

You're using an outlier like that period of time as an example against a general statement which included room for such outliers?

 

We're talkin' a period of some 700 years of history (roughly...), and you're referring to one period encompassing four kings and one Lord Protector?

 

First of all, that period started with the King being forced to sign the Magna Carta at the point of a sword.  Almost literally.

 

The official English Civil War was the bloodiest and most obvious example, but the Kings and the Parliaments fought each other constantly, and often.  Half of the wars with France were as much the result of Kings trying to consolidate political power at home as they were a sign of territorial ambition.

 

They took breaks for stuff like the bubonic plague, but they never really got along.

 

I don't disagree. However, before one is reduced to figurehead status, they coexist.

 

They do coexist.  Just not peacefully.

 

Monarchies exist in many forms. To see only the extreme of absolutism as a monarchy is just kind of silly. If that's the case, then what would you refer to the governmental system from the Magna Carta to the time when Parliament established complete dominance?

 

I would call it "a bad way to run a country".  It doesn't fit any of the specific terms that we use for governmental forms.  Which is why it is inherently unstable.  It is full of the cognitive dissonance that Elayne doesn't have.  ;)

 

In fact, under your concept, the only monarchy which ever existed were the Feudal kings (I'll even throw in Russian feudal kings which ranged for a MUCH longer period than anywhere else) and the French absolute monarchs.

 

And every other absolute dictatorship in history.  Most of the Egyptian Pharaohs.  Mycenaean and Hittite kings.  Various Khans and Chinese and Mughal Emperors.  A variety of African leaders.  Olmec and Mayan and Incan and Aztec monarchs.  Saddam's Iraq ("elections" notwithstanding).  And a number of others.

 

But yes, most of the post-Renaissance European "monarchies" were not actual monarchies.

 

In my opinion.

[arkinia]

How boring would the books be if there was no conflict and everyone just got along and agreed with one another?

[Shard]

How boring would the books be if there was no conflict and everyone just got along and agreed with one another?

 

Yeah I'd read David Eddings Belgarion books if I wanted that.

 

The only thing that really confused me was when Rand said "I want to give the throne to Elayne" she got angry over the word "give". What word was he supposed to use? I wonder how she'd feel if she knew he was Tigraine's son.

[Roxinos]

They do coexist.  Just not peacefully.

 

I said relatively. And I meant relatively. Relatively to the rest of Europe. I would assume that wars, political intrigue, and conflict would all be established norms of history. *laughs* So I said relatively. I was not meaning to insinuate that things like those didn't happen. Sincerely sorry if it came off that way. Merely that those things are normal in any political climate, in any governmental system.

 

It doesn't fit any of the specific terms that we use for governmental forms.

 

Of course it does. From the Magna Carta on was the beginning of the Constitutional Monarchy.

 

I'm, of course, oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity, but I'm certain you get my point. A form of government does not have to be stable to be a form of government. And I would argue that, regardless of all of the infighting, the Constitutional Monarchy was relatively stable. After all, England was the first to industrialize. You can't industrialize without stability.

 

And every other absolute dictatorship in history.  Most of the Egyptian Pharaohs.  Mycenaean and Hittite kings.  Various Khans and Chinese and Mughal Emperors.  A variety of African leaders.  Olmec and Mayan and Incan and Aztec monarchs.  Saddam's Iraq ("elections" notwithstanding).  And a number of others.

 

Forgive, I'm not a fan of ancient history. In fact, I downright despise ancient history. It just doesn't tickle me.

 

In my opinion.

 

Opinions can be wrong, you know. :-p I'd like to hear you argue that point with an academic in history.

 

How boring would the books be if there was no conflict and everyone just got along and agreed with one another?

 

I'd read it. I want to see how everyone reconciles themselves with the Great Lord.

 

That being said, I don't think anyone has suggested that. :-p

[RobertAlexWillis]

I said relatively. And I meant relatively. Relatively to the rest of Europe. I would assume that wars, political intrigue, and conflict would all be established norms of history. *laughs* So I said relatively. I was not meaning to insinuate that things like those didn't happen. Sincerely sorry if it came off that way. Merely that those things are normal in any political climate, in any governmental system.

 

I just don't see it being "relatively" peaceful even compared to the rest of Europe.  But this discussion would be extraordinarily complex.

 

Of course it does. From the Magna Carta on was the beginning of the Constitutional Monarchy.

 

I'm, of course, oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity, but I'm certain you get my point. A form of government does not have to be stable to be a form of government. And I would argue that, regardless of all of the infighting, the Constitutional Monarchy was relatively stable. After all, England was the first to industrialize. You can't industrialize without stability.

 

I do get your point, but I consider "Constitutional Monarchy" a little piece of PC crap.  Its like an "anarchist agenda" ... it describes a conflict between two systems of government, not a coherent system of government.

 

And industrialization does not require stability.  England just exported its problems by refocusing outward into Imperialism.

 

Forgive, I'm not a fan of ancient history. In fact, I downright despise ancient history. It just doesn't tickle me.

 

Fan or not, ancient history is the source of monarchy.

 

I'd like to hear you argue that point with an academic in history.

 

LOL ... which time?

 

Actually ... I'm a whole lot more convincing in person.  Which sometimes scares even me.

[arkinia]

How boring would the books be if there was no conflict and everyone just got along and agreed with one another?

 

I'd read it. I want to see how everyone reconciles themselves with the Great Lord.

 

That being said, I don't think anyone has suggested that. :-p

Haha TG would go down like this:

 

Rand: It's time to say sorry for everything you've done.

DO: I'm sorry.

Rand: Say it like you mean it.

DO: *sigh* I'm sorry I enslaved and killed so many people and stuff and tainted saidin and planned to ruin existence itself and it'll never happen again... until the wheel starts over.

Rand: There we go!

[Roxinos]

And industrialization does not require stability.  England just exported its problems by refocusing outward into Imperialism.

 

Hah. Said with the preconception that England could not have been stable because it was under an "unstable" form of government. I mean, even Russia, monumentally messed up in terms of what political systems work and what don't, what's stable and what's not, understood that industrialization comes from stability.

 

England began its imperialism before it industrialized. So did Spain and France. (Germany and the like did so, but later.) Imperialism and industrialization are not necessarily tied. Though, admittedly, during the Industrial Revolution, the countries of Europe once again set their sights on the rest of the world. Just Africa and Asia this time. However, during the Industrial Revolution, the vastness of the empire was inversely proportional to the strength of the mother country.

 

Fan or not, ancient history is the source of monarchy.

 

I know, I know. I wasn't trying to devalue ancient history. I was merely pointing out that I cannot really comment. I was admitting a fault. :-p

 

Actually ... I'm a whole lot more convincing in person.  Which sometimes scares even me.

 

I'd hope so. You're not that convincing online. OOO BURN!

[RobertAlexWillis]

OK, Rox.  We disagree.

 

Now, to funny stuff.

 

Rand: Now, go to Time Out, Shai'tan.

 

DO: HAHAHAHA Time Out!  Get it?

 

Rand: What are you talking about?

 

DO: I wanted to destroy Time.  Time ... Out.  Get it?

 

Mat: Rand ... we need to go get a drink or I'm going to stab him.

 

Rand: Keep your spear in your pocket, Mat.

 

Perrin: -snickers-

 

Rand: Don't make me tell a hammer joke, Yelloweyes.

 

Elayne, Aviendha, Min, Faile, and Tuon: Hurry up!  This is only number one on your lists for today, boys!

 

DO: I think I'll just go this way ...

 

Rand, Mat, and Perrin: Yes, dear.

 

DO: ... suckers.  I win again, Lews Therin!

[Roxinos]

Alternate ending:

 

Elayne, Aviendha, Min, Faile, and Tuon: Hurry up!  This is only number one on your lists for today, boys!

 

DO: Oh, Light... [shakes huge head]

 

Rand and co.: What...? [dumbfounded]

 

DO: I mean! Umm... OH ME! YEAH!

 

Rand and co.: Riiight...

 

 

[adverge]

When people argue about the annoying women in WoT they always argue about the motivations of Elayne, Nynaeve, and Egwene.  While I agree that Elayne is pretty stupid I don't believe she's the main source of the argument behind the 'annoying women' thing.  It's all the other female characters, such as the Wise Ones, the Aes Sedai, the various queens, and so on.  They're all really annoying, constantly bitching about men, and being generally useless.  All of the minor female characters have the same personalities as the major female characters.  There's very little variation in personalities.  They're all strong-willed, bossy, and domineering.  Not that submission is a great characteristic to have, but only the Seancean slaves ever really display it, and there's no in-between personality women at all.  I think if there was more variation, from extreme through to the other extreme, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about the women.

[Roxinos]

Except, as I said, men in tWoT suck as well. They just sit around and generally bitch about women, all while being generally useless. Of course, the exceptions on the useless part are our heroes who get quite a bit done. Just as our heroines get quite a bit done in spite of their bitching as well.

[adverge]

Except, as I said, men in tWoT suck as well. They just sit around and generally bitch about women, all while being generally useless. Of course, the exceptions on the useless part are our heroes who get quite a bit done. Just as our heroines get quite a bit done in spite of their bitching as well.

 

Honestly, except for a couple of the characters, I really dislike the personalities and interactions of most of the characters.  I like Mat and I like Nynaeve and Moraine.  Rand is annoying and his treatment of women insulting.  Perrin is so emo I want to slap him.  Faile was once cool, until she got married.  Elayne and Egwene are stupid.  The list goes on and ont.  The thing that keeps me reading these books, though, is the general construction of the story, the world they are set in, and the originality of the magical system.  I understand that Jordan is trying to show how the lack of, or poor, communication can hinder people, and that he's trying to do a gender role-reversal thing, but I think he lacks the subtly and skill to pull these particular things off.  He does have the skill needed for the plot and other constructions though, by far.