Female characterization in tWoT

[Terez]

And?

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

Last point re: sexism in WOT. I think that most of it everyone save the most zealous over-sensitive critics would treat as innocent.

Your entire post up to this point is a survey of sexism in WoT. How can you make all of those observations and then draw the conclusion that only "the most zealous over-sensitive critics" (a straw man fallacy, by the way) would actually identify that sexism for what it is? Serious question. Do you honestly not see your mistake?

 

You yourself even go on to cite an example of sexism in the story that's too much even for you:

 

There is one example that is bad IMO and it is sexual nature of Dark One's punishments of female Forsaken (rape, to put it clearly). This is violence mixed with sex and it is limited to females (males are never punished in that way). This is one territory I'd rather RJ hadn't entered or, if he really wanted to emphasize Dark One's cruelty and twisted nature, he should punish also a male Forsaken in similar manner.)

That's a particularly emotionally repulsive example, and it seems that many people who have never studied sex issues only recognize sexism in its most extreme forms. However, you're looking at the tiny tip of a very tall iceberg.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

I meant sexism as it exists in the modern world with men have a higher position on the ladder of equality than women.

That's only one area of sexism. Your phrasing "as it exists in the modern world" gives me the impression that you labor under the false conception that sexism only exists when job roles are sexually exclusive. Sexism is much, much bigger than just that. Your own post ("snot nosed bitches," etc.) is an illustration of the sexism in WoT, even if you do not realize it.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Second, he was aware of reality. The view that distinctions between the genders is a social construct is completely without merit. It lacks historical, biological, physchological, or common sense support. It requires a rather convoluted and (sadly) impressive series of assumptions and gaping leaps of logic.

Declaring "reality" in such a manner is not the pastime of an intellectual. Gender is a social construct, purely and wholly. Not only is that a logical given, but it is demonstrably true in the world of fact. Gender derives from the anthropomorphization of institutional gender roles, which in turn derive from sociocultural values stemming from the sexual segregation of past societies, which derived from the sexual division of labor in our transition into civilization, which derived from the sexual dimorphism of our animal ancestors, which was the completely arbitrary result of our evolutionary path of development.

 

There is no physical entity of "man" and "woman." In the world of anatomy, there are males, there are females, and there are the intersexed. The true differences between the sexes revolve almost entirely around reproductive issues. Outside that domain, they are almost totally irrelevant to the modern notion of human identity. Art, science, engineering, business, philosophy, and recreation all transcend our animal prerogatives and invite participation by both sexes equally. Only when it comes to selecting sexual partners, conceiving children, and extreme athletics is sex physically relevant as a category for the discrimination of individuals. Everything else is inherently sex-neutral.

 

Then gender comes along and asserts (usually on the claim of divine authority) how a person should behave on the basis of their sex. Suddenly we're talking about things like the color pink and homemaking, which have nothing to do with biological sex. Yet because of its entrenchment in our social consciousness, many people believe that gender reveals something about the nature of all individuals of a given sex. I scratch my head at their foolishness, because this faulty perception is in blatant contradiction the numerous examples of people who do not fit gender norms. I cannot tell you how many people I have met whose lives had been diminished because they were pushed into a gender which does not accommodate their individual personality.

 

(Nor am I talking exclusively or chiefly about sexual orientation, for those of you who are so ill-studied on the issue that you might mistakenly draw that conclusion from the preceding sentence. I am talking about the whole sphere of personal life, covering all aspects of identity.)

 

Societies choose to adopt the construct of gender because it follows from our history. Our animal ancestors had sustainable persistence as a species by favoring male aggression, which is typical of the primates (a reminder of our nearness on the family tree). When humans created civilization, they institutionalized existing behaviors, and from there developed the concept of gender roles. I should also note that males disproportionately controlled this process because at that point in our history strength was still the decisive factor in many social conflicts. This is why we never had any significant matriarchies--not because females were less able to participate in the creation of civil ideas, but because males have stronger muscles. That's not much of a justification for dividing humanity in half, but the founders of civilization were not exactly philosophers and they had no preexisting example from which to draw wisdom. They can be forgiven for their ignorance and lack of empathy.

 

But modern humans cannot. We know better, now. We know that whether a person likes the color pink says nothing about the other humans who share that person's sex. We know that males are sometimes the first to cry, and that females are sometimes the most ambitious--shattering preexisting notions about the simple and elegant division of all humanity into two halves on every subject. We know that wine coolers are not inherently a female drink, nor beer an inherently male one.

 

Well, "we" don't. Plenty of people still labor under the oppressive systems of gender that linger with us down through all these centuries, just like other social institutions created long ago and long since rendered irrelevant yet still fanatically adhered to by whole societies. If you look at our advertising, and social divisions, you see that plenty of people still don't get a fair shake, and still haven't been exposed to the fuller freedoms of human nature in a world where sex isn't important in most areas of life.

 

Robert Jordan was wedded to the idea of gender. He, like most people who lived before him (and most since), believed in the idea of gender. That is why his male characters are so overwhelmingly masculine and his female characters are so overwhelmingly feminine--both in narratorial description and in in-world roles and attitudes. Ultimately, his inability to escape that faulty worldview is why history will judge WoT as a transitional work when it comes to sexual equality issues. Though he did open up the social sphere to female participation, he could not allow females (or males) to exist free from the perspective of gender.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Another aspect of gender in the WoT universe is the characterization of how the different genders deal with the Power. It's not just that the Power is itself gendered into a male half and a female half. Using the One Power is characterized as taxing, and a person either has to be taught how to do it, guided through doing it, or run a high risk of death. The point here is that grasping the One Power is not easy for either gender, it involves mental exercises and training that are hard. Now look at how those genders grasp the Power: females must surrender and submit, males must dominate and control. The message seems to be that a mental state of submission and surrender is not a natural or easy one for women, likewise, a mental state of domination and control is not a natural or easy one for men. Women are not naturally submissive, men are not naturally domineering, but when they school themselves to these states, they gain awesome power and ability, and when they work together in these states, their power and abilities are greatly enhanced. That seems like a pretty powerful statement about gender: Women ought to submit, men ought to control, neither find it easy, but when they do, both are better and everybody around them is better off.

What a spin! RJ created the distinction in how the sexes use the Power differently not to illustrate what was hard for them, but to reflect what he thought is the core of masculine and feminine identity. Using the Power is both challenging yet also rewarding and satisfying. By reinforcing the notion that to use magic successfully, females must submit and males must dominate, RJ was clearly defining his normative beliefs as to the most proper behavior for individuals. This distinction in the use of the Power illustrates the limits of his progressivism, a boundary which, like the River Jordan for Moses, Robert Jordan was not able or willing to cross. You see the same thing when it comes to Circles, which, except for two special configurations, always requires both more females participating than males, and a male leading. RJ had his views about which sex should be on top; there's no use denying it.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Why do people keep saying WoT is sexist? Certainly it doesn't slavishly follow the politically-correct line that gender is completely irrelevant, but look at it in context. RJ said somewhere (don't remember the link, sorry) that he got a lot of inspiration for WoT after reading a book about a woman who wanted to become a magic user, but only men were allowed to wield arcane force. He thought that that was an interesting premise, and decided to use it in his story, but with sexes reversed. Hence a gender-divided magic system, the taint on Saidin and the cleansing of the taint, creating a world in which men are fighting for their equality.

 

The reality of WoT is not as noble as you give it credit for. Females have always been associated with trickery, seduction, and magic. RJ may have thought he was being novel to write a story where nearly all the magicians were female, but really the only show of defiance he made was to assert that Tar Valon is as strong over the other nations as it had been reputed to be. In the WoT world, males are still the warriors and the proprietors of industry--with some appreciated exceptions in various subcultures, like the Sea Folk. And females are still the sneaky conjurers and manipulators. In that regard, RJ was reinforcing historical views, not bucking them.

 

He also said that he was very interested by the differences between genders, and these do exist, regardless of how unpolitically-correct it is to mention the fact.

 

You are not using the language properly, but it prevents you from understanding your error. Yes, there are physical distinctions between the sexes, and these are well enough immutable until we get on with genetic engineering. Social distinctions between the sexes, meanwhile--that which we call gender--is completely arbitrary and therefore essentially meaningless.

 

But it is not sexist to be interested in how men and women vary...

 

You are mistaken. It is almost always sexist to be interested in that (unless you are talking about the anatomical distinctions between the sexes, which you are not). At best, it is a study of sexism to take an interest in such a thing. If I say I have this character in a story, and the character's name is "Sheila," what do you really know about her? All I gave her is a name. You can only deduce so much. Yet, with gender, people can and do claim to be able to deduce all manner of things. It's silly and foolish.

 

Judge and evaluate and classify people individually, not on the basis of their sex. With seven billion people on Earth, there is no way you'll make a profit by creating false dichotomies. There will always be exceptions to even the weakest, most narrow instance of gendered division.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

...men are just physically superior.

 

No, males are superior in strength, and only on average. Physically, males are merely different from females--not superior to them. Strength, despite its historical significance in shaping our civilization, is a very small aspect of the overall human condition.

 

Also I frequently see people talking about sexism towards women, but i think both genders are shown in both postive and negative lights and there is tendency for some to pick out only certain quotes and claim the series and Robert Jordan himself are sexist.

 

Sexism toward females is misogyny (and its counterpart is misandry); "sexism" itself is ambivalent to the sex of the victims and the perpetrators. You are mistaken that we're talking only about sexism toward females. RJ had a problem with both sexes.

 

Unfortunately rape is something that is pretty much limited to women. In today's or any society men don't really need to worry about being raped, and that's just the way it is.

 

That's flat-out-wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Rape is a huge problem for both sexes. You shouldn't pretend to know things about issues this serious when you don't really have a clue. It's okay to admit when you don't know something.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Not to mention that Shaidar Haran is male (at least I think he is. Are there female fades? I don't think I've ever seen one mentioned). He could be homosexual of course but the opposite is rather more likely.

 

The very premise that the Dark One's avatar would be a heterosexual male is an absurdity, and a testament to RJ's limits in addressing these issues successfully. Sex is a biological trait that most species don't even have, and sexual orientation is an even narrower trait.

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Men and Wimen are different.

We think different, we act different and when we act the same we do it for different reasons.

There is nothing superior about one over the other but we are not the same.

 

It is folly to assume that sex is a particularly significant identifier of distinction between individuals. There are 23 chromosome pairs in the human genome. All of them contribute to the diversity of our species. Do you really believe that one half of one chromosome pair is more significant a determiner of human nature than the other half of that pair along with the other 22 pairs?

 

That's ludicrous. There is vastly, vastly more diversity between people irrespective of their sex than specifically because of their sex. If you consider one million males, would you think they are all going to be alike? No, of course not. They're going to be different in more ways than you can count--more ways than science yet even knows. But they're all male! Sex is a very small portion of what makes one individual different from another individual. Nearly all of that diversity is attributable to factors other than sex--attributable to the 22 other chromosomes, and to the influence of nurture. If you considered one million males and one million females, you would find vastly more overlap than disparity between the two groups on any given trait (except for traits of anatomy), even accounting for the fact that nurture promotes a self-reinforcing gendered effect in the brain.

 

RJ was a good storyteller, but not particularly good at all when it came to understanding that most of the divisions between the sexes today are as artificial as the color of orange on your macaroni and cheese.

[Terez]

I am all for the buttrape of Demandred. (Am I allowed to say that?)

[Mr Ares]

Another aspect of gender in the WoT universe is the characterization of how the different genders deal with the Power. It's not just that the Power is itself gendered into a male half and a female half. Using the One Power is characterized as taxing, and a person either has to be taught how to do it, guided through doing it, or run a high risk of death. The point here is that grasping the One Power is not easy for either gender, it involves mental exercises and training that are hard. Now look at how those genders grasp the Power: females must surrender and submit, males must dominate and control. The message seems to be that a mental state of submission and surrender is not a natural or easy one for women, likewise, a mental state of domination and control is not a natural or easy one for men. Women are not naturally submissive, men are not naturally domineering, but when they school themselves to these states, they gain awesome power and ability, and when they work together in these states, their power and abilities are greatly enhanced. That seems like a pretty powerful statement about gender: Women ought to submit, men ought to control, neither find it easy, but when they do, both are better and everybody around them is better off.

It might be a pretty powerful statement about gender, but it's not one RJ is making - he's only making a point on how to use magic. You surrender to saidar, and guide it. You force saidin to do what you want - this is true regardless of whether you're a man or a woman (for example Aran'gar, a woman, uses saidin in the male way). In terms of people, RJ isn't saying men should try to boss women around all the time and women should surrender to men in order to guide them. In fact, the advice Abell Cauthon gives to Perrin about dealing with women, which basically amounts to picking your battles, involves men letting women have their own way most of the time. And Perrin notes this is rather similar to the advice Marin al'Vere gives Faile (so men and women aren't that different, and can be dealt with in the same way). And Rand doesn't have a huge amount of success trying to dominate all the time.

[MasterAblar]

Not to mention that Shaidar Haran is male (at least I think he is. Are there female fades? I don't think I've ever seen one mentioned). He could be homosexual of course but the opposite is rather more likely.

 

The very premise that the Dark One's avatar would be a heterosexual male is an absurdity, and a testament to RJ's limits in addressing these issues successfully. Sex is a biological trait that most species don't even have, and sexual orientation is an even narrower trait.

 

 

Shaidar Haran is also a myrddraal, who are male and throwbacks to their human side, and have been shown to do horrible things to their female captives.

[Mongoose]

Unfortunately rape is something that is pretty much limited to women. In today's or any society men don't really need to worry about being raped, and that's just the way it is.

 

Well, there's prisons. But mostly, this is correct.

 

oh, no, please, don't go there again. . .

 

this will lead nowhere good. . .

 

Well, it's an extremely unlikely point, but as long as people don't get bent out of shape about it, I don't see why it can't be discussed. Although I admit I haven't been around that long, I'm sure some of these debates can get pretty heated.

 

Anyway, as I was reading the series, I heard a few people (mostly women) tell me they didn't like it because it was overly sexist. I didn't see it untill I had things pointed out to me.

 

A lot of people pointed out the Aes Sedai, what with the pillowfriends and the going naked through Ter'angreal and going topless during important sessions of the Hall.

But most of those were similar to things that went on in the medieval Church (I remember the scene in The Borgias where after Alexander VI get's elected, they have to have someone confirm he's really a male before he can be formally named.

 

Also Hopefire had some really good points, I think.

[Guest PiotrekS]

Last point re: sexism in WOT. I think that most of it everyone save the most zealous over-sensitive critics would treat as innocent.

Your entire post up to this point is a survey of sexism in WoT. How can you make all of those observations and then draw the conclusion that only "the most zealous over-sensitive critics" (a straw man fallacy, by the way) would actually identify that sexism for what it is? Serious question. Do you honestly not see your mistake?

 

I didn't say there was no sexism, only that most of it was pretty innocent. The example to the contrary I cited explains why I said "most of it".

 

I think we might be using definitions of sexism that are a little different. I don't want to write too much about it - I don't claim any specialist knowledge in this area - but I could guess that probably my definition is too narrow and yours is too wide.

 

You yourself even go on to cite an example of sexism in the story that's too much even for you:

 

There is one example that is bad IMO and it is sexual nature of Dark One's punishments of female Forsaken (rape, to put it clearly). This is violence mixed with sex and it is limited to females (males are never punished in that way). This is one territory I'd rather RJ hadn't entered or, if he really wanted to emphasize Dark One's cruelty and twisted nature, he should punish also a male Forsaken in similar manner.)

That's a particularly emotionally repulsive example, and it seems that many people who have never studied sex issues only recognize sexism in its most extreme forms. However, you're looking at the tiny tip of a very tall iceberg.

 

Well, I prefer to fight against this "tiny tip of the iceberg" - rape, abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of representation and ecucational chances, hostile environment to young mothers - rather than think that each and every aspet of human civilisation is flawed with sexism. These views prompt only reactance.

 

But it is not sexist to be interested in how men and women vary...

 

You are mistaken. It is almost always sexist to be interested in that (unless you are talking about the anatomical distinctions between the sexes, which you are not). At best, it is a study of sexism to take an interest in such a thing. If I say I have this character in a story, and the character's name is "Sheila," what do you really know about her? All I gave her is a name. You can only deduce so much. Yet, with gender, people can and do claim to be able to deduce all manner of things. It's silly and foolish.

 

Judge and evaluate and classify people individually, not on the basis of their sex. With seven billion people on Earth, there is no way you'll make a profit by creating false dichotomies. There will always be exceptions to even the weakest, most narrow instance of gendered division.

 

Generally you are right. But you can't claim that the only difference between sexes is anatomical and is strictly limited to narrowly construed reproduction. You would deny a huge amount of research done in, e.g., cognitive psychology and neuroscience and you don't seem to be a person who would feel ok with denying the facts

 

The personal observation I have made recently is that women are generally (statistical, not absolute rule!) better in Raven-like abstract reasoning tests. I don't know any specific research pertaining to this, but you can easily find many other examples in scientific literature.

 

These differences are very subtle and don't justify any differentiation of social positions of people of either gender.

 

And yes, one chromosome is very much - think of the amount of genetical diversity between humans and our closest primate cousins. But I would rather emphasize the fact how much we have in common - not only within human species - rather than the differences. You are right that there are many factors which are much more imortant in differentating humans than sex.

 

I am all for the buttrape of Demandred. (Am I allowed to say that?)

 

Well, if it's too drastic, what had actually happened in the books was too drastic as well (and yes, I cought the humour)

[Terez]

A lot of people pointed out the Aes Sedai, what with the pillowfriends and the going naked through Ter'angreal and going topless during important sessions of the Hall.

But most of those were similar to things that went on in the medieval Church (I remember the scene in The Borgias where after Alexander VI get's elected, they have to have someone confirm he's really a male before he can be formally named.

Brandon made the same argument, but the fact remains that RJ chose not to write about any similar rituals with men, and he chose not to write about men in the sweat tents, and 'no male nudity' was one of his stock lines at book signings, particularly in relation to any possible WoT film - jokingly, to be sure, but it's still confirmation that he was more comfortable with sexing up the females in general. The references to the danger of this sort of debate have to do with some recent flare-ups on the subject, one of which was linked earlier, and another of which had to do with the lack of gay men in WoT in comparison to the high number of lesbians, and that discussion came about because Brandon took a male character whose sexuality wasn't specified and made him gay.

 

That's a particularly emotionally repulsive example, and it seems that many people who have never studied sex issues only recognize sexism in its most extreme forms. However, you're looking at the tiny tip of a very tall iceberg.

Well, I prefer to fight against this "tiny tip of the iceberg" - rape, abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of representation and ecucational chances, hostile environment to young mothers - rather than think that each and every aspet of human civilisation is flawed with sexism. These views prompt only reactance.

Not true at all - they promote real understanding of why the things you listed are such a problem. That's exactly why Emu called it the tip of the iceberg - these are the most obvious problems, but there are foundational problems lurking beneath the surface. The 'reactance' is just predicted and predictable, but it's not a good reason to ignore these issues.

[Guest PiotrekS]

 

That's a particularly emotionally repulsive example, and it seems that many people who have never studied sex issues only recognize sexism in its most extreme forms. However, you're looking at the tiny tip of a very tall iceberg.

Well, I prefer to fight against this "tiny tip of the iceberg" - rape, abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of representation and ecucational chances, hostile environment to young mothers - rather than think that each and every aspet of human civilisation is flawed with sexism. These views prompt only reactance.

Not true at all - they promote real understanding of why the things you listed are such a problem. That's exactly why Emu called it the tip of the iceberg - these are the most obvious problems, but there are foundational problems lurking beneath the surface. The 'reactance' is just predicted and predictable, but it's not a good reason to ignore these issues.

 

I think that rather than promoting real understanding they are preventing it, by making preliminary assumptions (for example, we don't want unequality - therefore there can be no real differences between males and females apart from narrowly defined reproduction. Which is obviously false).

 

And reactance is a real problem and often a disservice to the people who are clearly disadvantaged.

 

I don't want to ignore any issues, just not to attribute to them disproportional importance.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

We'll never make progress against sexism just by frowning upon a few of its worst manifestations. What we really need to change is people's underlying notion that the sexes need to be regarded and treated differently. They don't, and shouldn't.

[Terez]

That's a particularly emotionally repulsive example, and it seems that many people who have never studied sex issues only recognize sexism in its most extreme forms. However, you're looking at the tiny tip of a very tall iceberg.

Well, I prefer to fight against this "tiny tip of the iceberg" - rape, abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of representation and ecucational chances, hostile environment to young mothers - rather than think that each and every aspet of human civilisation is flawed with sexism. These views prompt only reactance.

Not true at all - they promote real understanding of why the things you listed are such a problem. That's exactly why Emu called it the tip of the iceberg - these are the most obvious problems, but there are foundational problems lurking beneath the surface. The 'reactance' is just predicted and predictable, but it's not a good reason to ignore these issues.

I think that rather than promoting real understanding they are preventing it, by making preliminary assumptions (for example, we don't want unequality - therefore there can be no real differences between males and females apart from narrowly defined reproduction. Which is obviously false).

The point is debatable, but either way, it's toward cherry-picking. Not all of the points in question are 'preliminary assumptions' at all.

 

And reactance is a real problem and often a disservice to the people who are clearly disadvantaged.

Agreed, but the reactivity is the problem, not the analysis of the issues.

 

I don't want to ignore any issues, just not to attribute to them disproportional importance.

This is also pretty subjective, and probably not worth debating. Again, we're talking about foundational issues - assumptions about 'natural' gender roles that lead to the problems in question. Activism and philosophical discussion are far from mutually exclusive anyway. More accurately they are interdependent - or at least, activism is dependent on philosophical reflection, and the net worth of philosophical reflection is dependent on activism.

[Mongoose]

Brandon made the same argument, but the fact remains that RJ chose not to write about any similar rituals with men, and he chose not to write about men in the sweat tents, and 'no male nudity' was one of his stock lines at book signings, particularly in relation to any possible WoT film - jokingly, to be sure, but it's still confirmation that he was more comfortable with sexing up the females in general. The references to the danger of this sort of debate have to do with some recent flare-ups on the subject, one of which was linked earlier, and another of which had to do with the lack of gay men in WoT in comparison to the high number of lesbians, and that discussion came about because Brandon took a male character whose sexuality wasn't specified and made him gay.

 

That is a good point. I can't honestly say I blame him much, I would likely be guilty of similar faults (though honestly I try to avoid nudity and sexuality altogether in my writing)

 

As for the gay character, I heard about that, and heard there was a lot of uproar about it, but I say good on Brandon. I personally am all for it.

[Guest PiotrekS]

Emu, Terez, I see your point. I don't agree completely, but it is subjective as you said and hardly a fundamental disagreement.

 

The allegation of cherry-picking was a little unfair though. There was no logical fallacy in my argument.

 

Do you think that the final scene will involve the idea that men and women need to work together to achieve the greatest feats?I personally hope so.

[Thrasymachus]

It might be a pretty powerful statement about gender, but it's not one RJ is making - he's only making a point on how to use magic. You surrender to saidar, and guide it. You force saidin to do what you want - this is true regardless of whether you're a man or a woman (for example Aran'gar, a woman, uses saidin in the male way). In terms of people, RJ isn't saying men should try to boss women around all the time and women should surrender to men in order to guide them. In fact, the advice Abell Cauthon gives to Perrin about dealing with women, which basically amounts to picking your battles, involves men letting women have their own way most of the time. And Perrin notes this is rather similar to the advice Marin al'Vere gives Faile (so men and women aren't that different, and can be dealt with in the same way). And Rand doesn't have a huge amount of success trying to dominate all the time.

 

It's not just a point about how to use magic, because magic is gendered, men wield saidin, women wield saidar. Within the WoT, most cultures are dominated or controlled by women. At the very least, the Women's Circle, or it's equivalent in other cultures, like the Wise Ones, has just as much authority and power as the Village Council and its equivalents. Some of the oldest and most stable realms in Randland are led by women, Andor and Tar Valon come to mind. However, what authority and control these ruling groups of women do exercise is not often in the form of overt domination, but subtle emotional manipulation, with the exception, perhaps, of Andor. Even when women are overtly in charge, they don't often just say what they want and expect it to be done, rather, they insult, flatter, goad or sexually manipulate men into doing what they want. In a sense, in those places where women are in charge, they rule their people in the same way they wield saidar; they surrender to the attitudes and inclinations of those they rule by accepting them, and in doing so, are able to guide them through emotional manipulation to the ends they desire.

 

One might say that the present circumstance in Randland of women being the dominant, controlling gender throughout the various cultures is accidental, it only came about because of the taint on saidin, which makes all men suspect, because there is at least the possibility that they might be able to learn to channel, even if they are not born with the spark. Women being the leaders and men being the followers is a role-reversal from what Western readers culturally expect. The differences in how men and women wield the Power serve to make that juxtaposition more explicit, and at the same time reinforce Western cultural attitudes held by the readers about the role and nature of the genders. It says, "the cultural roles of the genders are somewhat inverted from what a Western reader would expect, but that's ok because the genders are really the way Western readers expect them to be, evidenced by how they have to behave to wield the Power." It's one of the tricks of popular writing; invert the structure of a relationship into something other than what your readers would themselves culturally accept, then introduce some plot device that contradicts that inversion, reinforcing the stereotypes and attitudes held by the readers. It's a way of saying to the readers "This world you're reading about is different from what you expect, but your expectations are nonetheless correct, so it's ok to keep reading, because your prejudices will be validated."

 

And the Dark One's turning of Arangar from male to female actually supports my point. The progressive thing that RJ was doing here was making the point that gender doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with sex. Arangar remains a man, even when he's in a female body. You can see this most explicitly in the early scenes with the newly restored Arangar. He bristles at the change, and still thinks of himself as a man. It's also explicit in that he still wields saidin, not saidar. He doesn't become a woman because he's in a female body, being a woman is about your gender, not your sex. This appears to me to be RJ saying that gender trumps sex. This is a perversion for Western readers because it challenges the notion that one can tell a person's gender by being aware of their sex. We like our men to be male, and our women to be female. It helps that Arangar is a Forsaken, and it also helps that as Arangar spends more time in his female body, he develops appetites and inclinations that we more readily recognize as feminine. But this says something about the kinds of attitudes regarding sex and gender that RJ expects us to have.

 

And my take on the advice that Abel Cauthon gives is that men should accept women's attempts to guide them, while the advice that Merin al'Vere gives is that women should accept men's attempts to dominate and control the situation. It also represents to me the fact that men and women don't really understand each other very well, that they tend to think they're different when they're more alike, and tend to think they're alike when they couldn't be more different, so they should just stay out of each other's way for the most part. Rand's failures when he attempts to more rigidly dominate and control affairs don't appear to me to be a general statement about the appropriateness of masculine domination, but a consequence of his unique circumstances and the unique problems he faces as the Dragon Reborn.

 

RJ created the distinction in how the sexes use the Power differently not to illustrate what was hard for them, but to reflect what he thought is the core of masculine and feminine identity. Using the Power is both challenging yet also rewarding and satisfying. By reinforcing the notion that to use magic successfully, females must submit and males must dominate, RJ was clearly defining his normative beliefs as to the most proper behavior for individuals. This distinction in the use of the Power illustrates the limits of his progressivism, a boundary which, like the River Jordan for Moses, Robert Jordan was not able or willing to cross. You see the same thing when it comes to Circles, which, except for two special configurations, always requires both more females participating than males, and a male leading. RJ had his views about which sex should be on top; there's no use denying it.

 

I think it's noteworthy that using the Power is hard, that sustaining the level of dominance and control necessary to use saidin is hard for men, and sustaining the submission necessary to use saidar is hard for women. While I agree that RJ was intending to convey that domination was core to the identity of masculinity and submission core to the identity of femininity, the idea is the real men and women have a hard time reaching and maintaining that core. It's part of who they are, and yet at the same time, they can't sustain it for very long. Which isn't necessarily to say that women have an easier time dominating than men do, or that men have an easier time surrendering than women do.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I've just noticed that the word "progressive" is often used in this thread, as in "progressive writer"

 

In Poland this word is discredited now. It is funny to see people still using it with good intentions, like a travel back in time.

[Aiyen kin Leary]

We'll never make progress against sexism just by frowning upon a few of its worst manifestations. What we really need to change is people's underlying notion that the sexes need to be regarded and treated differently. They don't, and shouldn't.

 

There is no reason to treat the sexes differently. All people are worthy of respect unless they do something to forfeit that right. All people are worthy of a fair shot at their goals and aspirations. However, noticing that on average men tend to be physically stronger and women more physically flexible is hardly wrong. Noticing that on average men tend to be more aggressive and women more emotionally adept is fine too. It's debatable how useful the observation is, since people vary so much that you won't be able to really understand a person without truly knowing them as an individual, but the average differences are real. There is no wrong in acknowledging the truth.

 

Going back to some things you said earlier...

 

In general conversation, sex and gender are used interchangeably. Using the former to apply to the biological distinction and the latter to apply to socially-constructed roles is a particular use of language common in sociology, but less so in daily use. Now, this is a bit of a sociology topic, so I can use those definitions if you want.

 

In that case, gender is derived from a combination of natural sexual dimorphisms and people's reactions to them. Now, it's very easy to take gender too far (if we're using the sociological definitions). Just because you're a man doesn't mean you shouldn't study ballet, for instance. However, if you want to define any acknowledgment of or curiosity about the actual differences (on average; obviously there are very few differences that hold universally) as sexist, we will need a different word for sexual discrimination. It's the discrimination that's bad; curiosity and acceptance of facts are in no way dishonorable.

[Guest PiotrekS]

We'll never make progress against sexism just by frowning upon a few of its worst manifestations. What we really need to change is people's underlying notion that the sexes need to be regarded and treated differently. They don't, and shouldn't.

 

There is no reason to treat the sexes differently. All people are worthy of respect unless they do something to forfeit that right. All people are worthy of a fair shot at their goals and aspirations. However, noticing that on average men tend to be physically stronger and women more physically flexible is hardly wrong. Noticing that on average men tend to be more aggressive and women more emotionally adept is fine too. It's debatable how useful the observation is, since people vary so much that you won't be able to really understand a person without truly knowing them as an individual, but the average differences are real. There is no wrong in acknowledging the truth.

 

Going back to some things you said earlier...

 

In general conversation, sex and gender are used interchangeably. Using the former to apply to the biological distinction and the latter to apply to socially-constructed roles is a particular use of language common in sociology, but less so in daily use. Now, this is a bit of a sociology topic, so I can use those definitions if you want.

 

In that case, gender is derived from a combination of natural sexual dimorphisms and people's reactions to them. Now, it's very easy to take gender too far (if we're using the sociological definitions). Just because you're a man doesn't mean you shouldn't study ballet, for instance. However, if you want to define any acknowledgment of or curiosity about the actual differences (on average; obviously there are very few differences that hold universally) as sexist, we will need a different word for sexual discrimination. It's the discrimination that's bad; curiosity and acceptance of facts are in no way dishonorable.

 

Well said.

[Massive]

Women have no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks

[seanzor]

Jahdragon, on 28 April 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

 

Unfortunately rape is something that is pretty much limited to women. In today's or any society men don't really need to worry about being raped, and that's just the way it is.

 

That's flat-out-wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Rape is a huge problem for both sexes. You shouldn't pretend to know things about issues this serious when you don't really have a clue. It's okay to admit when you don't know something.

 

I stand corrected... oh wait no I don't.

According to studies done in 2003 and 2006 only 1 in ten rape victims are male. 71% of these victims were raped before they turned 18. Also a huge number of the rapes come from the 50,000 or so that happen in prison every year. So it's extremely rare for a free man over the age of 18 to get raped.

I absolutely do know what I'm talking about, and being a male I know I have never had to worry about sexual assault and I'm sure most men feel the same. It's funny when you flat out tell someone they don't know what they're talking about, when clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mats Spare Hat]

MMm, mmm, and when people gain solace and affirmation in quantification, to justify whether or not something's a huge problem, specifically rape...That's pretty funny too.

 

I mean, odds are, with statistical data no doubt able to support it out there, alot of those poor people in the southern US would never be devastated or have their lives affected by a tornado...yet here we are.

 

Way to break it down stat wise though, I'm sure being able to google, then copy/paste really lends itself the concept of really knowing what you're talking about.

 

OH well, here's a link to the page whats his face probably lifted his "absolutely know what I'm talking about" know-how. Conveniently it's the first result on google when you input 'percentage of male rape victims', along with hoards of other information beyond sound-bitey form, which almost has you guessing that male rape is just as huge a problem as female rape...though how anybody could argue, rationalizing with stats, that ANY rape, or even the chance of any rape isn't a huge problem befuddles me.

 

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361

 

Sweet, with that in hand, now I'll just... *scribbles on nametag

 

There, now it reads "Mat's Spare Hat, Absolutely know what I'm talking about, I know things, but not really, but I can google and act like it, so whatever"

[Massive]

Who gives a shit?

[Arhior]

There's only one thing I hate about women in Randland is that nobody cooks for themself... LOL

Just kidding, but I think women in WOT are mostly not that emphatic, not always but Elayne and Egwene know a lot of using people in ways I cant aprove... like not excusing to Mat.

But I do like it they are not creatures doing al the minor work.

[hjustinpace]

On a more positive note, it has resulted in the complete disappearance of prostitution.

Not true. It's mentioned a few times specifically with the camp followers, and it's alluded to in places like Lugard. RJ just kept the sexy stuff under the radar.

 

I can't recall it ever being mentioned overtly. Jordan has, however, stated that it doesn't exist in his created world. From the 13th Depository:

 

"Some readers have suggested the inn is a brothel, and that the name is a pun on ‘nine whores’ itch’: nine whores itching to get to work (and hopefully not itching with anything else, although we haven’t see any hints of STDs), but Jordan has said there is no prostitution in the Wheel of Time world:

 

'The question of Hake's inn in The Eye of the World is answered: it is not a whorehouse, at least not more than any other inn. Due to the increase in women's power, the very concept of prostitution is unknown; but women have much greater freedom in choosing their partners, both casual and permanent.'

 

- Plots, Characters and Wheel of Time article"

 

I think the idea of a world without prostitution is a bit silly, but nonetheless. I think Jordan also has different ideas about prostitution than some people do. I think he's specifically referring to the rather nasty sort where the prostitutes have no say in the selection of Johns and the pimp takes most the money. He's not referring to what was referrred to in Seinfeld as the "free exchange of sex and discounts."

[hjustinpace]

Declaring "reality" in such a manner is not the pastime of an intellectual. Gender is a social construct, purely and wholly. Not only is that a logical given, but it is demonstrably true in the world of fact. Gender derives from the anthropomorphization of institutional gender roles, which in turn derive from sociocultural values stemming from the sexual segregation of past societies, which derived from the sexual division of labor in our transition into civilization, which derived from the sexual dimorphism of our animal ancestors, which was the completely arbitrary result of our evolutionary path of development.

 

There is no physical entity of "man" and "woman." In the world of anatomy, there are males, there are females, and there are the intersexed. The true differences between the sexes revolve almost entirely around reproductive issues. Outside that domain, they are almost totally irrelevant to the modern notion of human identity. Art, science, engineering, business, philosophy, and recreation all transcend our animal prerogatives and invite participation by both sexes equally. Only when it comes to selecting sexual partners, conceiving children, and extreme athletics is sex physically relevant as a category for the discrimination of individuals. Everything else is inherently sex-neutral.

 

Then gender comes along and asserts (usually on the claim of divine authority) how a person should behave on the basis of their sex. Suddenly we're talking about things like the color pink and homemaking, which have nothing to do with biological sex. Yet because of its entrenchment in our social consciousness, many people believe that gender reveals something about the nature of all individuals of a given sex. I scratch my head at their foolishness, because this faulty perception is in blatant contradiction the numerous examples of people who do not fit gender norms. I cannot tell you how many people I have met whose lives had been diminished because they were pushed into a gender which does not accommodate their individual personality.

 

(Nor am I talking exclusively or chiefly about sexual orientation, for those of you who are so ill-studied on the issue that you might mistakenly draw that conclusion from the preceding sentence. I am talking about the whole sphere of personal life, covering all aspects of identity.)

 

Societies choose to adopt the construct of gender because it follows from our history. Our animal ancestors had sustainable persistence as a species by favoring male aggression, which is typical of the primates (a reminder of our nearness on the family tree). When humans created civilization, they institutionalized existing behaviors, and from there developed the concept of gender roles. I should also note that males disproportionately controlled this process because at that point in our history strength was still the decisive factor in many social conflicts. This is why we never had any significant matriarchies--not because females were less able to participate in the creation of civil ideas, but because males have stronger muscles. That's not much of a justification for dividing humanity in half, but the founders of civilization were not exactly philosophers and they had no preexisting example from which to draw wisdom. They can be forgiven for their ignorance and lack of empathy.

 

But modern humans cannot. We know better, now. We know that whether a person likes the color pink says nothing about the other humans who share that person's sex. We know that males are sometimes the first to cry, and that females are sometimes the most ambitious--shattering preexisting notions about the simple and elegant division of all humanity into two halves on every subject. We know that wine coolers are not inherently a female drink, nor beer an inherently male one.

 

Well, "we" don't. Plenty of people still labor under the oppressive systems of gender that linger with us down through all these centuries, just like other social institutions created long ago and long since rendered irrelevant yet still fanatically adhered to by whole societies. If you look at our advertising, and social divisions, you see that plenty of people still don't get a fair shake, and still haven't been exposed to the fuller freedoms of human nature in a world where sex isn't important in most areas of life.

 

Robert Jordan was wedded to the idea of gender. He, like most people who lived before him (and most since), believed in the idea of gender. That is why his male characters are so overwhelmingly masculine and his female characters are so overwhelmingly feminine--both in narratorial description and in in-world roles and attitudes. Ultimately, his inability to escape that faulty worldview is why history will judge WoT as a transitional work when it comes to sexual equality issues. Though he did open up the social sphere to female participation, he could not allow females (or males) to exist free from the perspective of gender.

 

Any pre-school teacher would attest to the absurdity of gender as a social construct. Nor do exceptions disprove the rule. You're asking us to accept that the vast, vasy majority of society has been snookered and offered no empirical support. If gender is a social construct and a negative one at that, what stops society from mothballing it? Nothing, of course, except the implication of our own stupidity. That kind of false consciousness argument is incredibly condescening and is no more persuasive in support of the erasure of gender roles than it was in its original form.

[Zhipp]

RJ said somewhere (don't remember the link, sorry) that he got a lot of inspiration for WoT after reading a book about a woman who wanted to become a magic user, but only men were allowed to wield arcane force. He thought that that was an interesting premise, and decided to use it in his story, but with sexes reversed. Hence a gender-divided magic system, the taint on Saidin and the cleansing of the taint, creating a world in which men are fighting for their equality.

 

That book sounds a lot like Equal Rights, by Terry Pratchet, but I find it hard to believe Discworld inspired RJ to write the WoT magic system the way he did. lol Maybe there's another book with a similar plot.