Female characterization in tWoT

[Kal11]

Btw, Rand calls her Mierin because that was the woman he knew intimately. Nobody else calls her that name and only does so a handful of times, there is no reason for a reader to fall into that habit. You call her Mierin because Lanfear doesn't fit with your card house you have built. That is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard trying to ignore a point.

 

I get the feeling you're trying to make this personal. That's an awfully silly criticism to raise.

 

No I just find your logic ridiculous and the way you talk down to and about people rather annoying and hypocritical.

[Kal11]

As for the bolded part...where do I event start? How does a woman being married equate to deferring to her husband?

 

It wasn't a universal observation. Some women do like deferring to their husband or consider the man to be the dominant one in the relationship, yet many feminists who believe every woman should be able to choose her identity would say it is wrong or they are brainwashed instead of accepting of their beliefs.

 

Spoken like someone who truly seems to have zero understanding of women and their roles in modern society. Funny how despite efforts to the contrary an individuals true colors shine right through in some posts...

 

No it is someone speaking the reality of the world. If you really think there are not women who enjoy being sexualized and treated like a toy you are sadly mistaken. I am not saying it is right, I am saying those people exist.

[Puny]

As for the bolded part...where do I event start? How does a woman being married equate to deferring to her husband?

 

It wasn't a universal observation. Some women do like deferring to their husband or consider the man to be the dominant one in the relationship, yet many feminists who believe every woman should be able to choose her identity would say it is wrong or they are brainwashed instead of accepting of their beliefs.

 

Spoken like someone who truly seems to have zero understanding of women and their roles in modern society. Funny how despite efforts to the contrary an individuals true colors shine right through in some posts...

 

No it is someone speaking the reality of the world. If you really think there are not women who enjoy being sexualized and treated like a toy you are sadly mistaken. I am not saying it is right, I am saying those people exist.

 

Do I dare dabble in, lol. I agree with Kal11 on this one. Some women like deferring to their husbands, and some husbands to their wives. Feminists who say those women are brainwashed are putting a double burden on the women, saying that they are brainwashed and as women(!) incapable of taking the decision to defer. Some women/men like to be treated as toys/sexualized objects, but it´s always consensual consent, otherwise it´s something else. Those feminists who disagree should be slapped =O

 

There are alot of things still to be done. Just because people have it worse somewhere else is no excuse to say that we should not do anything in our own country! I hate that argument. Why in Sweden a woman still has 80% of the pay a man has? How come more women are home with the kids when they are sick? How come a male kindergarden teacher can either be frowned upon or being seen as someone who can bring the women to heel? It all boils down to what we as individuals think, cause we do make up the society. Thing is, these thoughts are so ingrained in us, that sometimes we can swear that we don´t have them. So the first step is to try to see or see with a different PoV.

[Guest PiotrekS]

 

Sexism is a huge issue in our world, and most people are sexist in little (and big) ways without even realizing it. That's in addition to the ways in which some people are knowingly sexist.

 

I agree and in this matter, I'm 100% with you. Only I simply don't know about "most people" I would say "a lot".

 

I spent the other evening comforting a friend because she had been in line at the store when a group of people (adults, no less!) behind her started making fun of her for having short hair. They said it made her look like a boy, and they did it with a mean-spiritedness that forced her to leave the store.

 

For one thing, she had lost her hair a few months ago because she was sick. It wasn't her choice to have short hair. But for another thing, how on Earth does having short hair make you look like a boy? It doesn't. Hair length has nothing to do with sex. Both sexes can and do grow their hair to all kinds of different lengths, depending on personal preference and on the cultural attitudes of the day. She was upset not only that they were so mean-spirited, but that they were so judgmental toward her on the basis of something so silly.

 

These people sound to me like some primitive tryglodytes who, in addition to being sexist, were probably also racist, nationalistic, vulgar and plain stupid. I really doubt that they come to Dragonmount. Probably they think that books are contagious or something.

 

ll tell you a truth about the world. If you look back at the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the unionists, the civil rights activists...these people were all activists who helped change the world for the better. However, they achieved their gains by stepping on a lot of people's toes. When a society is wrong about something, the only way to get people to change their minds en masse is to make them uncomfortable. That puts a lot of heat back onto the activists. Ordinary people are vaguely offended or even hugely insulted when some activist comes up to them and says, "Hey, the way you're doing things...that's wrong. You need to reconsider your behavior."

 

Understandably, most people would feel threatened by that kind of a confrontation. Nevertheless, it's a necessary part of life. Humanity is far from perfect. We still need activists. Complacent people have to have some trigger to kick them out of their complacency. It's never comfortable, and it sucks, but that's the way it has to be. I had hoped this thread would not take the direction that it did, but I am not surprised.

 

Yes, but activists need to be connected to the people who they fight for, they need to have sympathy and support because their cause is seen as a just one. They can't alienate people unless they judge them to be irreconcilable enemies of their cause. You need support to be succesful, not just satisfaction that you are right and the society is wrong.

 

When the activists don't really care for what people think, they turn into bolsheviks - totalitarians shooting to workers while making speeches about workers' rights.

[Zentari]

@Emu:You have replied to this thread and completely ignored my request.

 

As for what you said, I find it more likely that it was a matter of survive and reproduce than simply being a peacock characteristic males used to compete.

 

Kinda funny you jumped on that conclusion though.

 

Also,still waiting for that genetic baseline you mentioned.

[Luckers]

Carry on. Nothing to see here. Enjoy the debate.

[FarShainMael]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

[Eichhörnchen]

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

[Guest PiotrekS]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

 

Unfortunately, some people seem to have very effective immune systems...

 

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

 

Well, in WOT there is One Power and women in the beginning have a monopoly on its usage. Additionally, the most powerful international organization, which is a diplomatic and military super-power, a reservoir of most advanced knowledge and has a legacy of central role in world affairs since thousands of years, is all-female. It only began to change with the Dragon's rebirth and the advent of the Asha'man.

 

Taking also into account the prevalent belief that men are responsible for the Breaking, it seems likely that male advantage in terms of physical strength would be more than balanced out.

[Eichhörnchen]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

 

Unfortunately, some people seem to have very effective immune systems...

 

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

 

Well, in WOT there is One Power and women in the beginning have a monopoly on its usage. Additionally, the most powerful international organization, which is a diplomatic and military super-power, a reservoir of most advanced knowledge and has a legacy of central role in world affairs since thousands of years, is all-female. It only began to change with the Dragon's rebirth and the advent of the Asha'man.

 

Taking also into account the prevalent belief that men are responsible for the Breaking, it seems likely that male advantage in terms of physical strength would be more than balanced out.

 

That's nonsensical. These said Aes Sedai segregate themselves from society and I doubt most people ever see one in their lifetime. Also society views male channelers not males per se as the blame party for the breaking. However even other societies exist which blame all channelers.

 

Not to mention that men form the military forces of the world. Which by all feasible logic makes the entire premise of the books contradictory. "He who has the power to destroy something is in control," as the old saying goes. Among the Amazonians of Greek legend the women formed the warrior class and hence logically they held the power and control.

[Guest PiotrekS]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

 

Unfortunately, some people seem to have very effective immune systems...

 

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

 

Well, in WOT there is One Power and women in the beginning have a monopoly on its usage. Additionally, the most powerful international organization, which is a diplomatic and military super-power, a reservoir of most advanced knowledge and has a legacy of central role in world affairs since thousands of years, is all-female. It only began to change with the Dragon's rebirth and the advent of the Asha'man.

 

Taking also into account the prevalent belief that men are responsible for the Breaking, it seems likely that male advantage in terms of physical strength would be more than balanced out.

 

That's nonsensical. These said Aes Sedai segregate themselves from society and I doubt most people ever see one in their lifetime. Also society views male channelers not males per se as the blame party for the breaking. However even other societies exist which blame all channelers.

 

Not to mention that men form the military forces of the world. Which by all feasible logic makes the entire premise of the books contradictory. "He who has the power to destroy something is in control," as the old saying goes. Among the Amazonians of Greek legend the women formed the warrior class and hence logically they held the power and control.

 

You are right that this "role reversal" isn't done in a perfectly consistent way. Men still dominate the military and have very strong position in politics.

 

But the One Power certainly plays a role and explains a difference in power distribution, when compared to typical XVI-th century society. You could criticize the degree and details, but the very existence of the principle of strengtened female position in society is logical IMHO.

[Eichhörnchen]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

 

Unfortunately, some people seem to have very effective immune systems...

 

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

 

Well, in WOT there is One Power and women in the beginning have a monopoly on its usage. Additionally, the most powerful international organization, which is a diplomatic and military super-power, a reservoir of most advanced knowledge and has a legacy of central role in world affairs since thousands of years, is all-female. It only began to change with the Dragon's rebirth and the advent of the Asha'man.

 

Taking also into account the prevalent belief that men are responsible for the Breaking, it seems likely that male advantage in terms of physical strength would be more than balanced out.

 

That's nonsensical. These said Aes Sedai segregate themselves from society and I doubt most people ever see one in their lifetime. Also society views male channelers not males per se as the blame party for the breaking. However even other societies exist which blame all channelers.

 

Not to mention that men form the military forces of the world. Which by all feasible logic makes the entire premise of the books contradictory. "He who has the power to destroy something is in control," as the old saying goes. Among the Amazonians of Greek legend the women formed the warrior class and hence logically they held the power and control.

 

You are right that this "role reversal" isn't done in a perfectly consistent way. Men still dominate the military and have very strong position in politics.

 

But the One Power certainly plays a role and explains a difference in power distribution, when compared to typical XVI-th century society. You could criticize the degree and details, but the very existence of the principle of strengtened female position in society is logical IMHO.

 

 

I would say that is rather far-fetched to assume a fact from antiquity that many people would probably even have difficulty accurately recalling unless they were scholars

to determine the entire societal structure in multiple nations. Would you say that the Original Sin as performed by Eve is the basis for patriarchy? Or the fact that men form the military and therefore hold the power to rule, govern and dictate?

 

In society and especially pre-industrial society everything revolved around who was the sword. Why do you think the Christian minority came to dominate Rome? The vast majority of the ruling class was non-Christian, but the military was plagued by conversions to Christianity to the point that Constantine who himself never converted to Christianity until his deathbed decades later, used the symbol of Christ as a rallying call to summon their loyalty.

 

Furthermore agricultural societies have historically been the strongholds of patriarchal systems due to the dependence on physical labor. Which is why even today the further you go into rural areas the more patriarchal society becomes compared to urban areas. So far as I can see in Randland men are the main military force and still the physical labor of the agriculture, which means there is no logical consistent or even plausible reason for the ways the societies are built. It drives against the very nature of human psychology and basic control mechanisms as have been proven again and again by thousands upon thousands of human societies in our history.

 

 

However to play with your idea that magical forces controlled solely by women is what gives them equal countenance. Among the Saxons and Vikings there were only priestesses, would you say that those societies were female dominated despite holding the monopoly on magic? Furthermore an Aes Sedai dies like any other woman, a fact that is probably abundantly clear due to the fact that more than a fair share of Aes Sedai found their bloody graves in Amadicia.

[anotherfingolfin]

books are contagious

 

Very true!!

 

Unfortunately, some people seem to have very effective immune systems...

 

It seems a bit contradictory to be honest. In a pre-technological world worth is often based on physical prowess. The women who can channel segregate themselves and are barely relevant in nigh all societies, hence one cannot really use them as an excuse either. In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army. It is for that reason alone that male hegemony and patriarchy has prevailed in our history. WoT seems to overtly for plot convenience overlook this annoying fact.

 

Well, in WOT there is One Power and women in the beginning have a monopoly on its usage. Additionally, the most powerful international organization, which is a diplomatic and military super-power, a reservoir of most advanced knowledge and has a legacy of central role in world affairs since thousands of years, is all-female. It only began to change with the Dragon's rebirth and the advent of the Asha'man.

 

Taking also into account the prevalent belief that men are responsible for the Breaking, it seems likely that male advantage in terms of physical strength would be more than balanced out.

 

That's nonsensical. These said Aes Sedai segregate themselves from society and I doubt most people ever see one in their lifetime. Also society views male channelers not males per se as the blame party for the breaking. However even other societies exist which blame all channelers.

 

Not to mention that men form the military forces of the world. Which by all feasible logic makes the entire premise of the books contradictory. "He who has the power to destroy something is in control," as the old saying goes. Among the Amazonians of Greek legend the women formed the warrior class and hence logically they held the power and control.

 

You are right that this "role reversal" isn't done in a perfectly consistent way. Men still dominate the military and have very strong position in politics.

 

But the One Power certainly plays a role and explains a difference in power distribution, when compared to typical XVI-th century society. You could criticize the degree and details, but the very existence of the principle of strengtened female position in society is logical IMHO.

 

 

I would say that is rather far-fetched to assume a fact from antiquity that many people would probably even have difficulty accurately recalling unless they were scholars

to determine the entire societal structure in multiple nations. Would you say that the Original Sin as performed by Eve is the basis for patriarchy? Or the fact that men form the military and therefore hold the power to rule, govern and dictate?

 

In society and especially pre-industrial society everything revolved around who was the sword. Why do you think the Christian minority came to dominate Rome? The vast majority of the ruling class was non-Christian, but the military was plagued by conversions to Christianity to the point that Constantine who himself never converted to Christianity until his deathbed decades later, used the symbol of Christ as a rallying call to summon their loyalty.

 

Furthermore agricultural societies have historically been the strongholds of patriarchal systems due to the dependence on physical labor. Which is why even today the further you go into rural areas the more patriarchal society becomes compared to urban areas. So far as I can see in Randland men are the main military force and still the physical labor of the agriculture, which means there is no logical consistent or even plausible reason for the ways the societies are built. It drives against the very nature of human psychology and basic control mechanisms as have been proven again and again by thousands upon thousands of human societies in our history.

 

 

However to play with your idea that magical forces controlled solely by women is what gives them equal countenance. Among the Saxons and Vikings there were only priestesses, would you say that those societies were female dominated despite holding the monopoly on magic? Furthermore an Aes Sedai dies like any other woman, a fact that is probably abundantly clear due to the fact that more than a fair share of Aes Sedai found their bloody graves in Amadicia.

 

 

While your argument is by and large obvious and sound, you must remember that there has to be a degree of suspension of disbelief. of course, YMMV with regards to the degree of that suspension.

 

My main issue with your argument is the comparison you made with Eve/Original Sin, in our world. The comparison is faulty. The Breaking of the world by men is not a myth somewhat believed by a subset of the population, as is Eve in our world. It is a historical FACT, that is universally recognised, and at least the gist of which is known by effectively every single person in the world. Further, as it is a real occurence, not a myth, it had some very real consequences.

In the post-Breaking world, society was in disarray, the only rememenants of the old order- here I'm assuming the Aes Sedai were the preeminent body in the previous Age- were all female. The most powerful people around (as in magic users) were all female. The asserted themselves, and became a respected power base in a society presumably somewhat uncomfortable with powerful men.

 

Here is where you have to assume (by which I mean, go along with the writer) that there was a strong degree of trickle-down, which with the continuity of the Age, has allowed, even 3000 years later, women to possess a power which is atypical in the real world, for pre-industrial societies.

 

It's a stretch, but not enough to bother me. What bothers me though, is why all women in the series seem to be bossy shrews, who's every third thought involves disparaging men as a whole. That particular cookie-cutter trait is something that makes no sense, if you are writing about human beings.

[Jon Paul]

The comparison between the fall of our First Parents (Adam and Eve) with the male half of the One Power, saidin, is indeed faulty. Not because it is not, as the above poster erroneously stated, historical fact, which it is, but because they bare no real similarity. Either the events or the fall out from them.

 

In society and especially pre-industrial society everything revolved around who was the sword. Why do you think the Christian minority came to dominate Rome? The vast majority of the ruling class was non-Christian, but the military was plagued by conversions to Christianity to the point that Constantine who himself never converted to Christianity until his deathbed decades later, used the symbol of Christ as a rallying call to summon their loyalty.

 

This is historically inaccurate. Constantine did convert. However it was a common practice for many people to delay baptism until the end of their lives because baptism cleanses the soul of both Original Sin and Actual Sin. In fact Constantine was planning to be baptised in the river Jordan and was making his way there when he fell ill and received baptism earlier than he intended.

[yoniy0]

In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army.

In our societies, yes. But we don't have the OP. Recall that AS aren't the only channelers out there. Even regular village Wisdoms in Randland sometimes do. Wouldn't you agree that a monopoly on medicine (which is impossible in real life, and even if a monopoly were possible rural medicine itself never would've been as effective) could affect the structure of society?

 

However to play with your idea that magical forces controlled solely by women is what gives them equal countenance. Among the Saxons and Vikings there were only priestesses, would you say that those societies were female dominated despite holding the monopoly on magic?

Ah, well, their role in society might've been different if their 'magic' were real, wouldn't you say? It's not quite fair to compare these situations.

 

Not because it is not, as the above poster erroneously stated, historical fact, which it is

Let's leave theology out of this discussion. People are entitled to their own faiths, and I'm sure you're no stranger to people disbelieving the story of Adam and Eve (just as we are none of us strangers to people believing in Creation). It is common courtesy not to assert your own belief's supremacy over everybody else's (at least not out loud ), though.

[Eichhörnchen]

In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army.

In our societies, yes. But we don't have the OP. Recall that AS aren't the only channelers out there. Even regular village Wisdoms in Randland sometimes do. Wouldn't you agree that a monopoly on medicine (which is impossible in real life, and even if a monopoly were possible rural medicine itself never would've been as effective) could affect the structure of society?

 

However to play with your idea that magical forces controlled solely by women is what gives them equal countenance. Among the Saxons and Vikings there were only priestesses, would you say that those societies were female dominated despite holding the monopoly on magic?

Ah, well, their role in society might've been different if their 'magic' were real, wouldn't you say? It's not quite fair to compare these situations.

 

Not because it is not, as the above poster erroneously stated, historical fact, which it is

Let's leave theology out of this discussion. People are entitled to their own faiths, and I'm sure you're no stranger to people disbelieving the story of Adam and Eve (just as we are none of us strangers to people believing in Creation). It is common courtesy not to assert your own belief's supremacy over everybody else's (at least not out loud ), though.

 

 

You seem to contradict yourself though. You stated that if women have the medicinal function in a society they're in a position of power. The main role of witch women and priestesses among the Germanic tribes was largely healing the sick, tending to the injured and the like. It was believed that their synchronization with the power of the Gods gave them superiority in such matters. Yet I don't presume to think that women dominated much of anything in the Germanic tribal societies.

 

In almost all human cultures women played a predominant role in the medical field, with the exception of post-renaissance when men started entering the field en masse when medicine moved away from an esoteric religious to a scientific field.

 

In truth Amadicia or Tear probably represent the most accurate portrayal of human nations when looking through our history, gender roles and human psychology.

[yoniy0]

You seem to contradict yourself though. You stated that if women have the medicinal function in a society they're in a position of power. The main role of witch women and priestesses among the Germanic tribes was largely healing the sick, tending to the injured and the like. It was believed that their synchronization with the power of the Gods gave them superiority in such matters. Yet I don't presume to think that women dominated much of anything in the Germanic tribal societies.

The reason I don't see any contradiction in my argument is also its focal point, which was:

Even regular village Wisdoms in Randland sometimes [channel the OP].

[...]

a monopoly on medicine ([...]rural medicine itself never would've been as effective)

[...]

Ah, well, their role in society might've been different if their 'magic' were real, wouldn't you say? It's not quite fair to compare these situations.

If old Nordic witches would've been as effective as Nynaeve, perhaps they'd have gotten the same treatment surgeons do in our society.

[Guest PiotrekS]

In truth it's simply an unrealistic fantasy world because the most worthful thing to a pre-industrial society is men on the farms and armed men in the army.

In our societies, yes. But we don't have the OP. Recall that AS aren't the only channelers out there. Even regular village Wisdoms in Randland sometimes do. Wouldn't you agree that a monopoly on medicine (which is impossible in real life, and even if a monopoly were possible rural medicine itself never would've been as effective) could affect the structure of society?

 

However to play with your idea that magical forces controlled solely by women is what gives them equal countenance. Among the Saxons and Vikings there were only priestesses, would you say that those societies were female dominated despite holding the monopoly on magic?

Ah, well, their role in society might've been different if their 'magic' were real, wouldn't you say? It's not quite fair to compare these situations.

 

Not because it is not, as the above poster erroneously stated, historical fact, which it is

Let's leave theology out of this discussion. People are entitled to their own faiths, and I'm sure you're no stranger to people disbelieving the story of Adam and Eve (just as we are none of us strangers to people believing in Creation). It is common courtesy not to assert your own belief's supremacy over everybody else's (at least not out loud ), though.

 

 

You seem to contradict yourself though. You stated that if women have the medicinal function in a society they're in a position of power. The main role of witch women and priestesses among the Germanic tribes was largely healing the sick, tending to the injured and the like. It was believed that their synchronization with the power of the Gods gave them superiority in such matters. Yet I don't presume to think that women dominated much of anything in the Germanic tribal societies.

 

In almost all human cultures women played a predominant role in the medical field, with the exception of post-renaissance when men started entering the field en masse when medicine moved away from an esoteric religious to a scientific field.

 

In truth Amadicia or Tear probably represent the most accurate portrayal of human nations when looking through our history, gender roles and human psychology.

 

Certainly the women's importance in medicine and spiritual matters strengtened their position in comparision to a hypothetical tribal society in which they wouldn't have these functions. I imagine that the chief priestess would have been a figure of great authority in the tribe.

 

As to your point about women playing a predominant role in the medical field "in almost all human cultures" with the post-reneissance exception...I'm afraid it is simply incorrect. Look at ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome...Look at shamans in even contemporary Amazon Indian societies. The medical professionals in the past were very often men (with the possible exception of obstetrics). Hippocrates was a man and so was Imhotep. Asclepius was a male deity. Although Merit-Ptah was a woman, I admit.

 

I don't dispute that the situation might have been different in certain other cultures, e.g. Germanic tribes. But your statement about "almost all" of them is incorrect.

 

I would also like to clarify what you meant by saying that "men starting entering the field en masse when medicine moved away from esoteric religious to scientific field". Leaving aside the factual aspect (which, as is evident from above, I take some issue with ), I hope you're not arguing that there was a causal connection between the two?

[aaron11]

Dragonmount is one of the places I come to relax and get away from my day job (which partly includes educating the public as to the nature and extent of sexism). I'd have to say, my natural instinct is to point out the multiple misunderstandings and bad information that some of you folks have.* But that's really tiresome, and I'm not even sure that I would be able to do so without going off-topic (despite the nature of this thread!). I'm also well aware that plenty of people would rather be quietly comfortable in their worldview and aren't actually interested in acknowledging or understanding the sexism in our world and in Robert Jordan's world.

 

So, if we can all agree to not treat people on the basis of their sex, and to allow and encourage people to do with their lives whatever they want without regard to their sex, then I'm willing to leave it at that. Anyone who explicitly wants me to reply to their post can ask. And I'll continue to call out egregious sexism when I see it.**

 

* For instance, just to pick one thing off the top of my head, the differences between the sexes in height, shape, and weight are also reproductive in nature, contrary to what somebody claimed. Male aggression (including height and musculature) evolved as a vehicle for males to compete to pass on their genes, and it happened to succeed well enough to result in significant dimorphism. Females are closer to the genetic base line, although some of their muscular potential has been diverted to reproductive fat due to energy limitations.

 

** E.g., that person who stubbornly stuck to his guns upthread saying that male rape isn't a problem. I'm coming back to that as soon as I have the time.

 

You are being blind to the reason males and females evolved the way we did... Pregnancy is the sole reason the sexes evolved different. For nine months a female becomes more and more dependent on others, while a male is fully capable of providing for the female.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

actually, there are a lot of theories as to the origins of size differences between males and females.

 

one of the strongest correlations for size difference is with the degree of polygamy practiced by a species. the more polygamy, the bigger the males usually are in proportion to the females (works the other way around, too, in species where females are more polyandrous).

 

one explanation for this is that the more females a single male attempts to breed with, the bigger he has to be to defend himself and his "harem" from other males. smaller males may not pass on as many genes because they may be unable to defend as large a harem as larger males.

 

oh, and i really don't like to get into these discussions, because, well. . .

 

but i'm a little surprised that nobody's questioned the premise that among the most worthwhile things to a pre-industrial society is the labor of men on farms.

 

because in pre-industrial societies, it took all the men, women and especially children (as well as the domesticated animals) to run the farm and produce food, fuel, shelter, etc.

 

and the existence of armies tends to cut the male population way down, making the labor of women and children (and animals) of even greater worth.

 

not that that makes men or women or children (or animals) more or less worthwhile to a society.

 

just that men, and women, and children, are equally worthwhile to society, to humanity, and to the future of same.

 

imo.

 

ok, carry on then. i'll go see to the animals.

[Guest PiotrekS]

You're right, Cindy

 

Although sometimes a certain division of labour emerged, in general everybody had to work extremely hard and do whatever was needed to make end meet, irrespective of gender.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

 

i don't really see a division of labor as a bad thing, or as something that necessarily leads to a sense of inequality. interdependence can be a good thing.

 

i see WOT cultures as gender interdependent, i guess. despite the complaining and internal muttering, i think men and women value each other in RJ's world.

 

again, imo.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I agree, what matters is a really free choice and equal opportunities.

 

I meant that this division of labor sometimes emerged, but sometimes not and people of both genders did the same things - harvest, house work...Women were involved in every kind of labor.

 

And yes, WOT also gives me a feeling that despite some appearances to the contrary, there really exists a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between men and women. Take for example Nynaeve - despite her incessant men-bashing, in fact she really appreciates and cares for them very much. One shouldn't be easily misled by appearances.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

(yes, i was agreeing with you, and then spinning off on a tangent. somehow i forget to mention that too much, about the agreeing, but i usually agree with you.)

[Guest PiotrekS]

I usually agree with you too,I think