Female characterization in tWoT

[Barid Bel Medar]

I also agree!

 

Perfect example of the men and women really appreciating each other in WoT is Nyneave.

 

When they go meet Tuon and she knocks Mat, then Nyneave goes crazy and defends him. I always loved that part!

[Ferdawoon]

All I can say is, OP, Successful troll is successful..

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

(trolls can, when they are not too vile to be of any use, provide interesting, if repetitious and ultimately pointless, topics for discussion. they may do the will of the creator though they do not know it.

and it was getting a bit slow around the holidays.)

[Xhojin]

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.

 

Does that mean you will stop using the name Mieren and call the character by her self-chosen name Lanfear? Will you stop making up excuses and rationalizations, that are often in direct conflict with both the story and it's author's own words describing her, that cover Lanfear's character flaws and motivations to revision her as a champion of good intent and feminist empowerment? You do a hell of a lot of superimposing your own beliefs and wishes onto the story and characters and are being a complete hypocrite. A woman does not act the way you think she should so you entirely recreate her in your mind (thinking you are being open-minded and fair no less I am sure).

 

Seriously, you are one of the most preachy and argumentative posters on this site to anyone that doesn't fall in lockstep with your personal worldview. Almost every word you type is steeped in personal bias and agenda. You complain about wanting to step away from your day job and relax, perhaps you should consider that others do not want to be forcefully indoctrinated by your zealous obsession.

 

+1

[Nerthus]

 

 

He was clearly aware himself of sexual inequality in the fantasy genre to say nothing of society at large. He put female characters into social roles that have traditionally been kept exclusive for males. He clearly tried to indicate that females are as competent as males in objective tasks. In that sense, his work is progressive.

 

Ofcourse you decide what is objectively progressive? First of all, his books are not this world or in this time. He could have choosen to portray societies like the Afghanistan today or the european stone ages...Why should someone care about your political view of what is progressive in writing fantasy?

 

Nevertheless, RJ himself had a parochial attitude toward gender roles, and both his male and female characterizations are annoying and a little bit creepy in their indulgence of gendered divisions which do not physically exist in the sexes. Yes, he put females in roles traditionally reserved for males, but he always did so with an implicit caveat of some kind..

Ofourse you will say everything your political view is against is parochial. Thats what people into gender studies allways do. You can allways call everything parochial without having to prove it because your structural mechanism are not examined. Why should it, it is impossible to falsify. Genderdivisions doesnt not physicaly exist in sexes? Men can have cary around babies for 9 months in the stomachs? Did you by the way know sex is the most explaining variable in human violence because of high testosterone levels. etc etc Your reasoning so typical to gender studies. How can it even be called a science when explanations from the natural sciences are ignored.

 

I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that RJ did this purely to illustrate Aiel culture, and that it is in no way representative of his own views, but when you add up all of these asterisks when it comes to females in male roles, you start to realize that RJ never did write straight up sex-neutral characterizations featuring females in male roles. He always had to return to that theme of fundamental division. His females are always eventually saddled with "feminine" traits. (And the males are always saddled with "masculine" ones.) Even the ones who showed promise in the beginning, like Min, ultimately ended up reinforcing sexual divisions rather than promoting sexual equality.

.

 

Hey, thats probably because generally females have feminine traits and men masculine.

Would you have been satisfied if he focused on the marginally deviant cases of black transexual dwarves and interacial draghar-human relationships? Then maybe you should look for another genre adressing a deviant audience.

Indeed, with RJ's WoT world metaphysics, sex in WoT is the most important distinction a character possesses. Half of the "One Power," the supreme controlling force of the universe, is forever off-limits to half the human population. And RJ rebutted criticism of this segregation preemptively, by casting Mierin Eronaile (who wanted to bring down that division for human advancement) as a villain comparable to the Christian biblical Eve.

.

And then again, sex is probably the most or one of the most important human distinction in the real world also.

 

 

In the final analysis, RJ is a transitional figure in the fantasy genre..

Prior to the 1990s, mainstream fantasy writers firmly conformed to late-Christian gender roles. Beginning in the 2000s, we began to see many more sex-neutral characterizations flourish--probably as the children of second-wave feminists grew up and started to create their own work. Ultimately, RJ can be applauded for recognizing the problems of sexism, but he must be regretfully criticized for failing to develop a satisfactory reply to them.

This is all about you critizing him for not fullfilling your own political ideals when ordinary people of both sexes find inspiration in his fantasy world.

[Vambram]

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.

 

Does that mean you will stop using the name Mieren and call the character by her self-chosen name Lanfear? Will you stop making up excuses and rationalizations, that are often in direct conflict with both the story and it's author's own words describing her, that cover Lanfear's character flaws and motivations to revision her as a champion of good intent and feminist empowerment? You do a hell of a lot of superimposing your own beliefs and wishes onto the story and characters and are being a complete hypocrite. A woman does not act the way you think she should so you entirely recreate her in your mind (thinking you are being open-minded and fair no less I am sure).

 

Seriously, you are one of the most preachy and argumentative posters on this site to anyone that doesn't fall in lockstep with your personal worldview. Almost every word you type is steeped in personal bias and agenda. You complain about wanting to step away from your day job and relax, perhaps you should consider that others do not want to be forcefully indoctrinated by your zealous obsession.

 

+1

 

+1 to Kal11 as well.

 

 

 

[Himiko]

 

I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that RJ did this purely to illustrate Aiel culture, and that it is in no way representative of his own views, but when you add up all of these asterisks when it comes to females in male roles, you start to realize that RJ never did write straight up sex-neutral characterizations featuring females in male roles. He always had to return to that theme of fundamental division. His females are always eventually saddled with "feminine" traits. (And the males are always saddled with "masculine" ones.) Even the ones who showed promise in the beginning, like Min, ultimately ended up reinforcing sexual divisions rather than promoting sexual equality.

.

 

Hey, thats probably because generally females have feminine traits and men masculine.

Would you have been satisfied if he focused on the marginally deviant cases of black transexual dwarves and interacial draghar-human relationships? Then maybe you should look for another genre adressing a deviant audience.

 

Generalisations mean very little to the individual, though. Without wanting to get into the sex vs. gender debate, let's say that I accept the hypothesis that generally females have feminine traits, and men have masculine traits. That doesn't mean that this is a blanket rule for everyone. In real life, I suspect you will find exceptions to that rule just about everywhere. I have a fairly large group of friends, consisting of both men and women, and the vast majority of them have both feminine and masculine personality traits- in fact some men have more "traditionally feminine" traits than masculine, and vice versa. You don't have to believe that the generalisations don't exist to protest the fact that there aren't exceptions.

 

Saying that, I think you'd have to define what masculine and feminine traits are, though, before seeing whether characters possess them, and whether exceptions exist. And of course, whether you can categorise all traits into either "traditionally masculine" or "traditionally feminine"- I personally disagree that you can. I mean, if you categorise "wanting to be in charge" as a masculine trait, whilst "wanting to submit/ being willing to submit" is seen as a feminine trait, then sure, most of the women in the books are exceptions to the rule, but, whilst I'm aware there are many men and women who are happily submissive to their partner, if this is a generalisation, then why have women across the world fought for the right to vote, to work, to be financially and legally independent from men? This isn't the case across all the world, but if in general, females have the trait of wanting to submit, why in the hell have so many bothered fighting for equality? Just an example, but yeah, that's my take on it- there are many "gender neutral" traits, IMO.

 

Now, as far as WoT goes, there are a few examples that come to mind of women with traditionally masculine traits- Birgitte jumps to mind as the most prominent. She drinks, she swears, she fights, and she eyes up men that she fancies. The Maidens of the Spear are fearsome warriors, and yet, many would argue that even then, they can only fight as long as they don't marry, whilst no such restriction is placed on the men. Min has been mentioned in this thread- I remember that she dressed like a man, which scandalised some of the other women, but since then, whilst she's kept her coat and trousers, she's made them more pretty and feminine, but I would argue that's not a huge drop- she's changed her fashion, but not a lot else, IMO. I've mentioned before that I find WoT a relief compared to some other fantasy works, as it has many strong willed female characters, who wield power, both political and literal, who accomplish great things, and whose aren't always getting captured so their love interest can rescue them. Nothing annoys me more than reading in fantasy about a female character who is awesome and can do all this great stuff, then suddenly a major bad guy comes along, and they can do nothing but be captured and wait for the hero to save them. At least in WoT when characters get captured, both male and female, its with a believable amount of force on behalf of their opponents. But even so, yeah, I think it would be nice to see more women who act more masculine and men who act more feminine, there's lots out there :P

 

Of course, that does bring us to another thought- the WoT is set in a land where men and women seem very... separate, if that's the word. They wield two different halves of the Power. In Emond's Field, we have two governing bodies, one exclusively run by men, one by women. We have the White Tower and the Black Tower. The Maidens of the Spear is entirely female, and the other warrior clans are entirely male. Perhaps the fairly rigid gender traits are there to provide another obstacle to men and women coming together and working side by side with the Power, which we hope will come at the end of the series? It may be that it was written this way on purpose.

[Nerthus]

 

I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that RJ did this purely to illustrate Aiel culture, and that it is in no way representative of his own views, but when you add up all of these asterisks when it comes to females in male roles, you start to realize that RJ never did write straight up sex-neutral characterizations featuring females in male roles. He always had to return to that theme of fundamental division. His females are always eventually saddled with "feminine" traits. (And the males are always saddled with "masculine" ones.) Even the ones who showed promise in the beginning, like Min, ultimately ended up reinforcing sexual divisions rather than promoting sexual equality.

.

 

Hey, thats probably because generally females have feminine traits and men masculine.

Would you have been satisfied if he focused on the marginally deviant cases of black transexual dwarves and interacial draghar-human relationships? Then maybe you should look for another genre adressing a deviant audience.

 

Generalisations mean very little to the individual, though. Without wanting to get into the sex vs. gender debate, let's say that I accept the hypothesis that generally females have feminine traits, and men have masculine traits. That doesn't mean that this is a blanket rule for everyone. In real life, I suspect you will find exceptions to that rule just about everywhere. I have a fairly large group of friends, consisting of both men and women, and the vast majority of them have both feminine and masculine personality traits- in fact some men have more "traditionally feminine" traits than masculine, and vice versa. You don't have to believe that the generalisations don't exist to protest the fact that there aren't exceptions.

 

Saying that, I think you'd have to define what masculine and feminine traits are, though, before seeing whether characters possess them, and whether exceptions exist. And of course, whether you can categorise all traits into either "traditionally masculine" or "traditionally feminine"- I personally disagree that you can. I mean, if you categorise "wanting to be in charge" as a masculine trait, whilst "wanting to submit/ being willing to submit" is seen as a feminine trait, then sure, most of the women in the books are exceptions to the rule, but, whilst I'm aware there are many men and women who are happily submissive to their partner, if this is a generalisation, then why have women across the world fought for the right to vote, to work, to be financially and legally independent from men? This isn't the case across all the world, but if in general, females have the trait of wanting to submit, why in the hell have so many bothered fighting for equality? Just an example, but yeah, that's my take on it- there are many "gender neutral" traits, IMO.

 

Now, as far as WoT goes, there are a few examples that come to mind of women with traditionally masculine traits- Birgitte jumps to mind as the most prominent. She drinks, she swears, she fights, and she eyes up men that she fancies. The Maidens of the Spear are fearsome warriors, and yet, many would argue that even then, they can only fight as long as they don't marry, whilst no such restriction is placed on the men. Min has been mentioned in this thread- I remember that she dressed like a man, which scandalised some of the other women, but since then, whilst she's kept her coat and trousers, she's made them more pretty and feminine, but I would argue that's not a huge drop- she's changed her fashion, but not a lot else, IMO. I've mentioned before that I find WoT a relief compared to some other fantasy works, as it has many strong willed female characters, who wield power, both political and literal, who accomplish great things, and whose aren't always getting captured so their love interest can rescue them. Nothing annoys me more than reading in fantasy about a female character who is awesome and can do all this great stuff, then suddenly a major bad guy comes along, and they can do nothing but be captured and wait for the hero to save them. At least in WoT when characters get captured, both male and female, its with a believable amount of force on behalf of their opponents. But even so, yeah, I think it would be nice to see more women who act more masculine and men who act more feminine, there's lots out there :P

 

Of course, that does bring us to another thought- the WoT is set in a land where men and women seem very... separate, if that's the word. They wield two different halves of the Power. In Emond's Field, we have two governing bodies, one exclusively run by men, one by women. We have the White Tower and the Black Tower. The Maidens of the Spear is entirely female, and the other warrior clans are entirely male. Perhaps the fairly rigid gender traits are there to provide another obstacle to men and women coming together and working side by side with the Power, which we hope will come at the end of the series? It may be that it was written this way on purpose.

 

I agree with you on most. Wonderful reply!

 

But you seem to have tendency in to a fallacy of reason like this about gender traits:

 

Because traits are not clearly dichotomous (both men and women can do this and that), it follows that ther are no physically constituted gender traits.

 

Why is this a fallacy? Because its all about general prevalence of traits in scales.

Example:

Both men and women do violent stuff.

Both men and women have testosterone known to make cause lack of empathy and violent behaviour.

 

That said. We can conclude that violence is not an exclusively male trait. Both violence and lack of empathy are female and male traits.

 

But! Men have more testosterone, are therefor generally more prone violence and less empathic than women.

 

The distinctivly male and female traits are actually:

that men are MORE violent than women

that women are MORE empathic than men

 

 

I like and appreciate your examples and descriptions of strong females in RJ:s books. What makes me mad is when a postmodern gender studies person comes and want to tell everyone what is progressive and tries to fit everything into their political ideology.

[Puny]

I will prolly gather alot of toh by asking this since I´ve read the series a couple of times now, but this has never occured to me before until you mentioned it Himiko... lol.

 

Are there only warrior women in the Far Dareis Mai? You mean that there are no women in Seia Doon, or say the waterseekers?

[MasterAblar]

I will prolly gather alot of toh by asking this since I´ve read the series a couple of times now, but this has never occured to me before until you mentioned it Himiko... lol.

 

Are there only warrior women in the Far Dareis Mai? You mean that there are no women in Seia Doon, or say the waterseekers?

 

Yup, all the women warriors of the aiel, who are significantly fewer than the male warriors, are in Far Dareis Mai.

 

And yes, you do have toh.

[Puny]

As long as the toh is to you, Master Ablar I´m happy. lol.

 

Wow... that is really. I feel disappointed =/ So all the ladies are put together in one society, (I´m always confused about the diff between clan and society, but I guess Far Dares Mai is a society but they can be in diff clans) but when they fight they fight with other men. Why did Jordan write it like that? Seems men and women are seperate everywhere.... sigh...

[Nerthus]

 

 

Why in Sweden a woman still has 80% of the pay a man has?

 

Why not mention women in Sweden live 4 years longer than men? Longer lives for women is a pattern all over the world.

As a Swedish man I would be fully satisfied to give you my highter salary for your extra years. Just fetch a ter angreal and we´ll have it done.

[Aiyen kin Leary]

I will prolly gather alot of toh by asking this since I´ve read the series a couple of times now, but this has never occured to me before until you mentioned it Himiko... lol.

 

Are there only warrior women in the Far Dareis Mai? You mean that there are no women in Seia Doon, or say the waterseekers?

 

Yup, all the women warriors of the aiel, who are significantly fewer than the male warriors, are in Far Dareis Mai.

 

And yes, you do have toh.

 

But you can't tell someone they have toh without incurring toh yourself! Light, now I have toh...

[Dbob]

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.

 

I once said something very similar (without the statistics) to a friend of mine who works for the Austin Sex Crimes unit. He said that you don't need a penis to rape anybody, and that male rape happened a lot more that I thought it did, it's just extremely difficult to get men and boys to report it.

[Dbob]

Yeah. SO, gender and Jordan. I think it’s extremely obvious that Jordan drew a particularly rigid and not exactly flattering distinction between men and women in WOT. For me, it’s really the little things, that add up to the huge thing, and I can’t think of a more explicit example of the little things that add up the the confusion about women in WOT than Rand’s F*****g list.

 

Isn’t he chivalrous!! Isn’t it wonderful – except that chivalry is based on the assumption of the weakness of women. The poor dears just can’t open doors or hold down jobs because they’re so scatterbrained and frail.

 

Those poor Maidens (and anyone else) just can’t be allowed to take their own risks, have their decision respected, fight the fights they choose, and Rand of course must feel responsible just like a good father should be.

 

That list was complete and utter disrespect. Why was Rand responsible? He made no list for the men he sent to their deaths. Why the difference?

 

Why is the choice of the male expected and accepted, and the choice of the female abhorrent to such a gigantic extreme, why can a women not have her decision to go into battle respected – and if she dies, why can’t she be respected enough to be mourned as a warrior, not a horribly misguided person who you now have to feel perpetually responsible for?

 

 

Jordan is completely conflicted when it comes to gender. Chivalry is a hallmark of rigidly patriarchal societies, it's assumptions and manifestations are inherently misogynistic. I agree with the person up thread who said that Jordan was sufficiently aware of gender issues to make the attempt, but didn’t understand them well enough to change the paradigm.

 

I won’t go into the rape of Mat. Or all that slippering and spanking……

[capuga]

Yeah. SO, gender and Jordan. I think it’s extremely obvious that Jordan drew a particularly rigid and not exactly flattering distinction between men and women in WOT. For me, it’s really the little things, that add up to the huge thing, and I can’t think of a more explicit example of the little things that add up the the confusion about women in WOT than Rand’s F*****g list.

 

Isn’t he chivalrous!! Isn’t it wonderful – except that chivalry is based on the assumption of the weakness of women. The poor dears just can’t open doors or hold down jobs because they’re so scatterbrained and frail.

 

Those poor Maidens (and anyone else) just can’t be allowed to take their own risks, have their decision respected, fight the fights they choose, and Rand of course must feel responsible just like a good father should be.

 

That list was complete and utter disrespect. Why was Rand responsible? He made no list for the men he sent to their deaths. Why the difference?

 

Why is the choice of the male expected and accepted, and the choice of the female abhorrent to such a gigantic extreme, why can a women not have her decision to go into battle respected – and if she dies, why can’t she be respected enough to be mourned as a warrior, not a horribly misguided person who you now have to feel perpetually responsible for?

 

 

Jordan is completely conflicted when it comes to gender. Chivalry is a hallmark of rigidly patriarchal societies, it's assumptions and manifestations are inherently misogynistic. I agree with the person up thread who said that Jordan was sufficiently aware of gender issues to make the attempt, but didn’t understand them well enough to change the paradigm.

 

I won’t go into the rape of Mat. Or all that slippering and spanking……

 

Of course it's made clear by the way the other characters perceive the dead woman list that nobody thinks the list is a good idea and the reader shouldn't think so either. So I'm not sure how that's an indictment of RJ. Let's also remember that a particular character's way of viewing the world isn't necessarily the author's own point of view. Authors try to create distinct characters with their own personalities and motivations. And again, it's made pretty obvious that everyone else believes that Rand is an idiot for having a list like that and for not being willing to fight female forsaken or allowing the Maidens to do what they have chosen to do with their lives.

[Dbob]

No, not really, and rand isn't the only one who has that attitude.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

Yeah. SO, gender and Jordan. I think it’s extremely obvious that Jordan drew a particularly rigid and not exactly flattering distinction between men and women in WOT. For me, it’s really the little things, that add up to the huge thing, and I can’t think of a more explicit example of the little things that add up the the confusion about women in WOT than Rand’s F*****g list.

 

Isn’t he chivalrous!! Isn’t it wonderful – except that chivalry is based on the assumption of the weakness of women. The poor dears just can’t open doors or hold down jobs because they’re so scatterbrained and frail.

 

Those poor Maidens (and anyone else) just can’t be allowed to take their own risks, have their decision respected, fight the fights they choose, and Rand of course must feel responsible just like a good father should be.

 

That list was complete and utter disrespect. Why was Rand responsible? He made no list for the men he sent to their deaths. Why the difference?

 

Why is the choice of the male expected and accepted, and the choice of the female abhorrent to such a gigantic extreme, why can a women not have her decision to go into battle respected – and if she dies, why can’t she be respected enough to be mourned as a warrior, not a horribly misguided person who you now have to feel perpetually responsible for?

 

 

Jordan is completely conflicted when it comes to gender. Chivalry is a hallmark of rigidly patriarchal societies, it's assumptions and manifestations are inherently misogynistic. I agree with the person up thread who said that Jordan was sufficiently aware of gender issues to make the attempt, but didn’t understand them well enough to change the paradigm.

 

I won’t go into the rape of Mat. Or all that slippering and spanking……

 

Good post, but be careful. Your attempts to offer an honest criticism of RJ's sexism problems with WoT is liable to set you up for personal attacks from all manner of sexists who don't take very kindly to having their fantasy authors or their own precious worldviews challenged. If you want to have a mature discussion here about sexism in WoT, I advise a thick skin and patience.

 

Three weeks later, and the trolls are still piling on...

[Sleeper]

Yeah. SO, gender and Jordan. I think it’s extremely obvious that Jordan drew a particularly rigid and not exactly flattering distinction between men and women in WOT. For me, it’s really the little things, that add up to the huge thing, and I can’t think of a more explicit example of the little things that add up the the confusion about women in WOT than Rand’s F*****g list.

 

Isn’t he chivalrous!! Isn’t it wonderful – except that chivalry is based on the assumption of the weakness of women. The poor dears just can’t open doors or hold down jobs because they’re so scatterbrained and frail.

 

Those poor Maidens (and anyone else) just can’t be allowed to take their own risks, have their decision respected, fight the fights they choose, and Rand of course must feel responsible just like a good father should be.

 

That list was complete and utter disrespect. Why was Rand responsible? He made no list for the men he sent to their deaths. Why the difference?

 

Why is the choice of the male expected and accepted, and the choice of the female abhorrent to such a gigantic extreme, why can a women not have her decision to go into battle respected – and if she dies, why can’t she be respected enough to be mourned as a warrior, not a horribly misguided person who you now have to feel perpetually responsible for?

 

 

Jordan is completely conflicted when it comes to gender. Chivalry is a hallmark of rigidly patriarchal societies, it's assumptions and manifestations are inherently misogynistic. I agree with the person up thread who said that Jordan was sufficiently aware of gender issues to make the attempt, but didn’t understand them well enough to change the paradigm.

 

I won’t go into the rape of Mat. Or all that slippering and spanking……

 

Good post, but be careful. Your attempts to offer an honest criticism of RJ's sexism problems with WoT is liable to set you up for personal attacks from all manner of sexists who don't take very kindly to having their fantasy authors or their own precious worldviews challenged. If you want to have a mature discussion here about sexism in WoT, I advise a thick skin and patience.

 

Three weeks later, and the trolls are still piling on...

Or we just disagree with his opinion ...

[Zentari]

 

Good post, but be careful. Your attempts to offer an honest criticism of RJ's sexism problems with WoT is liable to set you up for personal attacks from all manner of sexists who don't take very kindly to having their fantasy authors or their own precious worldviews challenged. If you want to have a mature discussion here about sexism in WoT, I advise a thick skin and patience.

 

Three weeks later, and the trolls are still piling on...

Thick skull and stubbornness is more like it at any rate.

 

Still waiting for that genetic baseline of yours btw.

[Vambram]

 

 

Of course it's made clear by the way the other characters perceive the dead woman list that nobody thinks the list is a good idea and the reader shouldn't think so either. So I'm not sure how that's an indictment of RJ. Let's also remember that a particular character's way of viewing the world isn't necessarily the author's own point of view. Authors try to create distinct characters with their own personalities and motivations. And again, it's made pretty obvious that everyone else believes that Rand is an idiot for having a list like that and for not being willing to fight female forsaken or allowing the Maidens to do what they have chosen to do with their lives.

 

 

 

+1000 QFT

 

 

[Dbob]

Yeah. SO, gender and Jordan. I think it’s extremely obvious that Jordan drew a particularly rigid and not exactly flattering distinction between men and women in WOT. For me, it’s really the little things, that add up to the huge thing, and I can’t think of a more explicit example of the little things that add up the the confusion about women in WOT than Rand’s F*****g list.

 

Isn’t he chivalrous!! Isn’t it wonderful – except that chivalry is based on the assumption of the weakness of women. The poor dears just can’t open doors or hold down jobs because they’re so scatterbrained and frail.

 

Those poor Maidens (and anyone else) just can’t be allowed to take their own risks, have their decision respected, fight the fights they choose, and Rand of course must feel responsible just like a good father should be.

 

That list was complete and utter disrespect. Why was Rand responsible? He made no list for the men he sent to their deaths. Why the difference?

 

Why is the choice of the male expected and accepted, and the choice of the female abhorrent to such a gigantic extreme, why can a women not have her decision to go into battle respected – and if she dies, why can’t she be respected enough to be mourned as a warrior, not a horribly misguided person who you now have to feel perpetually responsible for?

 

 

Jordan is completely conflicted when it comes to gender. Chivalry is a hallmark of rigidly patriarchal societies, it's assumptions and manifestations are inherently misogynistic. I agree with the person up thread who said that Jordan was sufficiently aware of gender issues to make the attempt, but didn’t understand them well enough to change the paradigm.

 

I won’t go into the rape of Mat. Or all that slippering and spanking……

 

Good post, but be careful. Your attempts to offer an honest criticism of RJ's sexism problems with WoT is liable to set you up for personal attacks from all manner of sexists who don't take very kindly to having their fantasy authors or their own precious worldviews challenged. If you want to have a mature discussion here about sexism in WoT, I advise a thick skin and patience.

 

Three weeks later, and the trolls are still piling on...

 

People will see what they will see. It doesn't matter. We all love the books for different reasons. I do have an issue, and I always have, with the way Jordan characterized women, along with thousands of other people. At first for me, because I wanted the AS to be bad ass like the BG in the Dune books, but they weren't.

 

If someone does not see the analogs in Jordan's writing, to what we've always known here in the real world, there's nothing you or I can do to convince them. It may be fun to snipe at each other, but really, it doesn't matter.

 

There will always be 'shippers who will not hear anything the slightest bit critical of their object of worship, there will always be people who disagree. So be it. Who cares about that?

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

i found the portrayal of the BG in dune to be incredibly misogynistic. women who can control every atom in their bodies, and every toxin they ingest, have to be chemically lobotomized in order to bear gholas? seriously?

 

i try to understand the intent of the writer when/if can. i'm not successful a lot of the time, but i still try. i don't think RJ's intent was sexist. i think it's sort of deconstructionist to interpret him that way.

 

but, you know, have fun with it.

[Dbob]

i found the portrayal of the BG in dune to be incredibly misogynistic. women who can control every atom in their bodies, and every toxin they ingest, have to be chemically lobotomized in order to bear gholas? seriously?

 

i try to understand the intent of the writer when/if can. i'm not successful a lot of the time, but i still try. i don't think RJ's intent was sexist. i think it's sort of deconstructionist to interpret him that way.

 

but, you know, have fun with it.

 

Hmm, never thought of the BG that way. But then it's been years and years since I read Herbert so who knows. I might have to go back and read through it again.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that RJ was an overt misogynist or sexist. We all have attitudes about things that we grew up with. Mostly unconscious unless they're challenged, guys - all guys have at some point in their life done something overtly sexist and gotten jumped on for it, got surprised, because it never occurred to us that the underlying attitude of whatever it was we did, was sexist. That doesn't make us rabid sexists, but it does challenge your underlying attitudes.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest - being a Southern Man, that RJ picked up a lot of that Old Southern Chivalry we were all raised with, at least in my generation. It's quaint, and courtly, and sexist to the core, and you can see it in Jordan's writing. Does that mean we all hate women? Hell no, we call it being polite, but that doesn't change the fact that all of those customs began as reinforcement that women were weaker and less capable than men. The man pays, because the woman has no job.

 

You do however get a surprised awakening when you see some young girl standing on the bus, and like a gentleman you offer your seat, and she turns you down flat. Not rudely, just makes it plain that she's fine standing - which happened to me on my way to work one day, it never occurred to me that she preferred to stand, I just assumed she needed to sit, that was sexist of me, but it was not malicious. That never would have happened forty years ago.

[Nerthus]

i found the portrayal of the BG in dune to be incredibly misogynistic. women who can control every atom in their bodies, and every toxin they ingest, have to be chemically lobotomized in order to bear gholas? seriously?

 

i try to understand the intent of the writer when/if can. i'm not successful a lot of the time, but i still try. i don't think RJ's intent was sexist. i think it's sort of deconstructionist to interpret him that way.

 

but, you know, have fun with it.

 

Hmm, never thought of the BG that way. But then it's been years and years since I read Herbert so who knows. I might have to go back and read through it again.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that RJ was an overt misogynist or sexist. We all have attitudes about things that we grew up with. Mostly unconscious unless they're challenged, guys - all guys have at some point in their life done something overtly sexist and gotten jumped on for it, got surprised, because it never occurred to us that the underlying attitude of whatever it was we did, was sexist. That doesn't make us rabid sexists, but it does challenge your underlying attitudes.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest - being a Southern Man, that RJ picked up a lot of that Old Southern Chivalry we were all raised with, at least in my generation. It's quaint, and courtly, and sexist to the core, and you can see it in Jordan's writing. Does that mean we all hate women? Hell no, we call it being polite, but that doesn't change the fact that all of those customs began as reinforcement that women were weaker and less capable than men. The man pays, because the woman has no job.

 

You do however get a surprised awakening when you see some young girl standing on the bus, and like a gentleman you offer your seat, and she turns you down flat. Not rudely, just makes it plain that she's fine standing - which happened to me on my way to work one day. That never would have happened forty years ago.

 

Buuuut, in a world where not everyone can channel and not everyone is protected by channelers. And where there is dark friends, thiefs, robbers, murderers, bad gangs of mercenaries, dragonsworn etc etc, it is obvious ordinary men have a great role in protecting women. Rand was born an ordinary man in a ordinary village without protection. It would be strange if he wasnt brought up with ideals about protecting the physically weaker sex.

 

He knows that some women are plain evil like the women of the Forsaken, and some are capable of protecting themselves just fine like e.g. Morraine, but is conflicting with the way he has been brought up - in an ordinary village with ordinary women and men. Its not a sexist village or even sexist ideals. The village is controlled by one group of men and one group of women. They are separate but equal. They are just handling different kinds of issues in the village life of the Two Rivers. Acctually that is in line with one form of the forms of feminist ideology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism)