Twitter Conversation With Brandon on Sexuality and Gender in the Wheel

[randsc]

On the submit/dominate thing, you're right. We can't know.

 

On the physical strength thing? Sorry, but that's what we call, "empirically discoverable." We can know. Not about all men and all women. But about most men and most women.

 

"Will a man my height, weight, and build that has lived the same life I have be able to lift more, just because his tissue is arranged differently?"

 

The chances are, overwhelmingly, that the answer is, "Yes."

[arianrose]

On the submit/dominate thing, you're right. We can't know.

 

On the physical strength thing? Sorry, but that's what we call, "empirically discoverable." We can know. Not about all men and all women. But about most men and most women.

 

"Will a man my height, weight, and build that has lived the same life I have be able to lift more, just because his tissue is arranged differently?"

 

The chances are, overwhelmingly, that the answer is, "Yes."

 

I was about to question where you got the fact that I didn't agree with you... and then I realized I made a misleading statement. So. Sorry, when I meant I didn't agree with the argument about physical strength, I meant that I don't think that physical strength in the real world is necessarily a compelling foundation for magical strength in a fantasy world.

 

I absolutely agree that physical strength can be quantified, and that conclusions can be drawn from that. I also agree that those conclusions will (and do, and have) state(d) that men have greater upper body strength than women. My point with the "will a man ... be able to life more" is actually, yes, I believe he will. It's just the way tissue grows. Why is that? Dunno, just is.

 

It's not only empirically discoverable, it's also statiscally significant. (And, yes, the number of women who are observered to take actions that "submit" being greater than the number of men observed to take actions that do so is also statistically significant. Just not empirically discoverable, and, therefore, we cannot establish nor rule out causality.)

 

Wow. I'm loving the commas today.

[yoniy0]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I just ... wow.

I don't see how I caused hurt by using the phrase 'more likely'. It's not a declaration of what men and women do. Nor did my comment include any determination that men seek to control everything around them using brute force and women subterfuge. I said that when one finds oneself in a situation where one has to battle/control something, it is my belief that men will tend toward open confrontation more than women. Do you disagree? Again, by 'tend' I mean what an average person would do most of the time. Not what every person does all of the time.

And not being able to prove causality shouldn't stop me from speculating about it. Because that is all I did; I didn't claim to know the truth of the matter, rather merely suggested what I believed might be the cause.

[arianrose]

I don't see how I caused hurt by using the phrase 'more likely'. It's not a declaration of what men and women do. Nor did my comment include any determination that men seek to control everything around them using brute force and women subterfuge. I said that when one finds oneself in a situation where one has to battle/control something, it is my belief that men will tend toward open confrontation more than women. Do you disagree? Again, by 'tend' I mean what an average person would do most of the time. Not what every person does all of the time.

And not being able to prove causality shouldn't stop me from speculating about it. Because that is all I did; I didn't claim to know the truth of the matter, rather merely suggested what I believed might be the cause.

 

No, not at all. I agree that it's absolutely a reflection of observed tendencies, and has strong statistical support: more men will visibly respond with aggression, and more women will visibly respond with concilliation. You're right there. What I disagreed with was this:

 

A man is likely to respect something more if he has to fight it first; a woman much more likely to understand how to control something by yielding to it. Does that come from our society being male-dominant? I don't think so

 

To be more accurate(1), I'm not trying to take issue with the fact that you hold that opinion - you're welcome to it, and I'm sure you've come to it honestly(2). I may have overreacted, because I'm a bit sensitive about the whole "women manipulate" thing, I grant you that. However, it seemed to me that you were trying to deny a causality between a male-dominant society and the observed behaviors. Please don't misunderstand - I am not trying to assert that causality in turn. I don't honestly know, and what I am trying to assert is that no one can actually know, because we can't test for it.

 

Therefore, saying that RJ set up a magic system in which women surrender and men fight, and this is not based on his - and our - all living in a male-dominant society is not a tenable position. Neither is its opposite. I tend to believe that yes, we all carry invisible biases and it informs and surrounds us, and that this is one of them. You obviously don't feel that way. Isn't it great that neither of us can be proven wrong?

 

(1) I'm looking at my post count, and I realize that I, um, look new. I've been reading y'all for years, though, and one thing I know is that you all value accuracy, especially in potentially flamable situations. :) I don't post because, frankly, everyone gets to the great ideas before I do, and I don't like "me too!" posts.

(2) I tried and tried to rewrite that. I just want to underscore, since you don't know me and can't see me, that yoniy0, I really do believe you've put some consideration into your opinions, and that you aren't trying to deceive anyone as to what they are. The sentence as it stands looks sarcastic; it isn't intended as such.

[yoniy0]

Okay, (1) you just reminded me of something Terez used to have in her sig. Your post count doesn't affect the validity of your arguments, we all know that - so don't worry

(2) I feel I was very clear that my opinion in the matter is just that - an opinion. I stated an observation (with which you seem to agree), and followed with a question. By doing that I can introduce my (current, though open for discussion) belief without pretending that it's fact. It might be that I'm wrong, and I feel I've admitted as much simply by presenting the question.

 

To the point, naturally it's never as simple as that. In any given situation, any human being may very well opt for the best option open to him/her, so our society's (still) current state as male-dominant does affect the commonness with which each of the sexes practices different methods of persuasion. I was simply putting forward that a underlying disposition exists independently of that state, as a result of our physical nature. Perhaps we might find an anthropologist here who can tell us how leaders in matriarchal societies conduct themselves.

[Terez]

Having a high post count just means that you think highly enough of your own opinion that you blab about it nonstop on internet forums because you assume that people either want to read it or should read it. Right Luckers?

 

Also, welcome to arianrose. You should less lurky, more posty. Just saying. If you don't have any great observations, then questions can be fun.

[Luckers]

Having a high post count just means that you think highly enough of your own opinion that you blab about it nonstop on internet forums because you assume that people either want to read it or should read it. Right Luckers?

 

I can't help it if other people hunger relentlessly for my thoughts.

[Terez]

It's a blessing and a curse.

 

Why do you always erase my emoticons? It hurts my feelings.

[yoniy0]

Why do you always erase my emoticons? It hurts my feelings.

It's impolite to answer your own question

[Elend]

I think only those with the perfect post count matter. And by perfect post count, I mean whatever mine is at any given time. And Admins. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Kal11]

To put in a gay character just to have a gay character seems cheesy and forced to me personally. It is akin to how many TV shows/movies feel compelled to have a gay character because it is trendy or the PC thing to do, not because it is organic or natural to the story. Especially after reading Luckers' account of how Rand's situation early in the series resonated with him as a gay male (something I never considered and found very interesting to be truthful) I fail to see the need for a gay character to make the story feel inclusive. If the story already hits on points you (a gay person)can relate to then why do you need a blatantly homosexual character included to feel happy or represented? My wife and I both greatly enjoy the series largely because it covers issues of personal growth and development as a person from many different angles, this additional perspective just makes makes me appreciate RJ's ability to encompass both universal and personal aspects of human development that much more.

 

As far as sexism in the WoT goes I find the idea ludicrous to be honest. There are more examples than I could ever name that show women in a positive and often dominant light. If you want to nitpick and point out examples of females or feminine nature being painted negatively I could find just as many regarding males. I feel RJ did a great job of painting a balance between the masculine and feminine in his story and illustrating both good and bad characters and archetypal qualities in either sex. In reality males and females have very different strengths and weaknesses, it is what makes us balance and complement each other. If your criteria is the number of nude scenes or the like then you are just scratching the surface of the story at hand and looking at it in the most superficial way possible. One of the most enlightening and meaningful underlying messages in the WoT for me personally is the need each gender has for the other and what they bring to the table.

 

In fact the whole Yin and Yang/Masculine and Feminine balance RJ tried to illustrate throughout the series has much more to do for the lack of gay characters than any sort of cultural bias as implied by some. Someone earlier mentioned the theme of Aes Sedai having pillow friends then later seeking out men upon maturity. I think this just plays into RJ's perception of the masculine/feminine balance in the greater order of things, not some kind of bias or intentional exclusion of homosexual characters. The series is just one man's perspective on the world and philosophy, nothing more nothing less. If you really have a problem with it then I imagine you are the type that is defined by and wear your sexuality/biases/politics on your sleeve (I am truly not trying to be inflammatory with that comment btw, jsut offering an opinion). It is ok to just enjoy something as it is, not as you want it or think it should be. Many things I have enjoyed or even loved over the years have come from a perspective or belief system totally different than mine, it is a matter of being able to appreciate or accept something that isn't exactly as you would have it.

[Terez]

A good number of the things you bring up have been addressed in thorough detail already. One point, though: RJ's tendency to oversex the females in WoT is certainly superficial in some ways, but don't make the mistake of thinking that we only think about the series only in a superficial manner. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.