The complaint about sexism

[David Selig]

Being right doesn't make it not-sexist =). Unless he assumes they always need saving not simply because they're women but because of who they are as people and his knowledge of them as individuals. But I got the impression it was simply because they were Bloody Women.

 

Definitely. As far as Mat's concerned, all women except Birgitte need saving and can't take care of themselves. He's just as sexist as the Supergirls and the other women who keep annoying him by underestimating and trying to boss him, just in a different way.

[FarShainMael]

@emu: yes, your post is interesting, and I'll copy it off to read it in detail later. But I wish - oh HOW I wish - that instead of guessing what I 'really meant', PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, for the love of the Light, ASK me what I meant, if you aren't clear on it. PLEASE do NOT guess!!!!! Especially, please do not guess what I meant and then tell me I got it wrong when it's your own guess that is wrong.

 

You assumed that I meant biological differences. I said nothing about what type of difference I had in mind. Instead of asking me, you drew an inference.

 

"I think you’re claiming that people inherently have broad anthropological behavioral differences because of their sex, on the basis of your perception that the sexes behave differently. If I am reading you incorrectly.."

 

Another inference.

 

"Now, you were talking about behavioral differences in the sexes, and presumably

anthropologically significant ones."

 

And another!!

 

Unfortunately I cannot now prove to you, or to the forum members, what I really meant, because of those inferences.

 

 

PLEASE try to remember and bear in mind (if you didn't catch on to it before) that I have Asperger's Syndrome and I am an engineer to boot and this means there are NO repeat NO buried layers of meaning, because I DO NOT KNOW HOW to include those! If that seems to you to be unlikely to the point of impossible, then please investigate the syndrome, and satisfy yourself that really is how Asperger's works. Or rather, doesn't work...

 

Sorry to shout but I've had this problem all my 61 years of life* and it's only been for the last three of those years that I've begun to understand what's been going on!

 

*All right. Less a couple of years while I learned to talk.

 

PS. Menstruation a behaviour? Surely, it is a process? I never had a choice whether I menstruated or not..

 

Also, on the subject of testosterone, look up PCOS. I don't have the condition, but my mother did.

 

And yes, I do know why the Milky Way is called that.. but I can't now prove to you that I already knew it. Though I can tell you that lactose - milk sugar, to which my younger son is intolerant - is a disaccharide of glucose and galactose.

 

"We are so much more alike than different"

 

You'll get no argument from me on that!

[jemron]

I just wanted to say that this forum is one of the reasons why I love Dragonmount. Such intelligent people having mature conversations! Thanks everyone for your interesting input. I don't have much more to add than that. I've not thought about sexism in many of the ways that people have brought it up in this thread, and I appreciate the chance to expand my understanding a bit more.

[Chriswot]

I have a hard time understanding why some people get so worked up about this apparent sexism in the world of WoT, and in the world in general. Yes in our past there has been instances and periods in time where women were considered the fairer sex. Women couldn't vote and it was considered ill to beat your wife with a stick bigger than the diamater of your thumb. News flash! That's all changed now in North American and European societies at least. In fact the main form of sexism nowadays is chauvanists and feminists who were scorned by the opposite sex at one point in their lives and have undertaken a mindset hellbent on insisting the opposite sex is bad.

 

To say sexism doesn't exist would be utterly daft of me. Sad but true there are still instances of it, but to say the world of WoT is sexist? I mean come on. Men and Women are different, Robert Jordan recognized it and payed homage to it. You can tack on any definitions or descriptions you want. It will never change the fact that Men and Women are of the same race but entirly different at the same time.

 

It's these differences that draw us to eachother.

 

Sexism as was said earlier is a term for demeaning sombody due to what is between their legs.

 

WoT consists of almost 2000 characters in a world where for the most part Women have the role men had 60 years ago in our world. Except the men don't have it so bad do they? They grumble and complain about their place in the world but the village still has a council consisting of men doesn't it? The women have their circle and the two groups bicker back and forth. That in itself mirrors our own world.

 

My aged grandma and grandpa have been married almost 70 years and when I go over to visit them My nan cooks dinner still, nags at my gramps about this, that and the other thing, and he smiles at her. The thing is that you can see the love in his eyes, you can see the fact that no matter what she says or does it will never sway him from her. That is the type of relationships we have in Wot my friends, not the dastardly evil women who control their men, nor the man who thinks less of his woman.

[WilsonC]

While I agree that the anthropological differences between the sexes are far less significant than the differences learned through culture, functionally it amounts to essentially the same thing. If the male characters in a modern day story have an aversion to wearing pink, to the point where the one man wearing a pink shirt gets laughed at, that amounts to a broad generalization, but it's also a reflection of reality. There's no genetic reason why pink is perceived as a feminine colour, but it's a mentality that's ingrained enough within a lot of cultures that it might as well be a genetic predisposition if you're showing the behaviors of people within a society with that notion. Science can isolate real versus learned difference between the sexes, but on a functional level, every culture has learned customs, gender related and otherwise, that are so prevalent as to be indistinguishable from biological differences.

 

In the Wheel of Time world, there's an additional difference, a real one, between men and women, and that's the form of the One Power which is available to them. In the Age of Legends, that difference strengthened gender equality, because the greatest achievements required men and women working together (ever notice how some of the least sexist characters in Wheel of Time are Forsaken?) Post Breaking, that difference meant that there were two important gender-related decisions that needed to be made: what kind of status does a woman's ability to channel give her, and how do you protect the society from the danger of male channelers going mad? Those are two major decisions, global issues, and would have either a direct or indirect influence on gender issues in every culture in the world. On Randland, the women's ability to channel has allowed them to establish an organization which has been the most powerful political presence in their known world for longer than any existing cultures existed in a recognizable form. They're trained to project an illusion of infallibility. It wouldn't be believable if this institution didn't instill strong gender prejudices throughout the general populace. It's also probably not an accident that a nation like Tear, which is tentative at best toward the One Power (and does its best to act like it doesn't exist), seems to be more gender neutral in its power structure than a nation like Andor, which has held close ties to the White Tower for generations.

 

It's also not surprising that the most egalitarian society in the series (from a gender standpoint) is a nation that murders the men who channel and enslaves the women who channel. As far as the Seanchan are concerned, damane aren't real people, so the ability to channel grants them no special status. Outside of the potential of becoming sul'dam, gender means very little in a Seanchan's place in society; it's about Blood first and merits second, with very little emphasis on a person's sex.

 

Overall there's certainly plenty of sexism within the WoT setting; given the mechanics of the world and the taint, it would be bad writing if there wasn't. If, in our modern society where raw strength is no longer a core trait for most jobs, we still see deeply ingrained cultural gender tendencies, a setting like WoT where the differences in the One Power are real and a central part of the universe wouldn't be believable without the sexism.

[A. Pseudonym]

It is good to see that Emu's monotopical crusade continues and that his arguments are growing and developing over time. They are still unfortunately hinged upon preconceived value judgements and the consequent necessity to fit a narrative around those value judgements.

 

I have already discussed this subject with him via PM, which he has not bothered to respond to, so I will not involve myself beyond leaving a link and a quote from said link which illustrates a view on gender more in keeping with how natural selection has shaped it. A view more in keeping with how things are and not how they should be according to the valuation of a heavily indoctrinated ideologue.

 

Let it not be said that one should judge reality before one fully understands it. (And equally let it not be said that one can know an absolute truth, but rather that the value in knowledge is how closely it correlates to perception of the world and not otherwise)

 

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143894

 

Female Archetype

To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire natural role and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups where, like all individual weakness, it procures strength through numbers and finds safety in groups.

 

In fact a woman's place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see further on, and it has been mans intervention and imposition of authoritarian, paternalistic sociopolitical systems that has stripped women of the full extent of their power, as expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms, by subjugating them to cultural and religious dogmas that inhibit natural mechanisms and corrupts human instincts.

 

Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic "gatekeeper" and social "filter" that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious or psychological traits.

 

In natural environments a woman's sexual choices are guided by natural motivations, in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman's sexual choice is further complicated by other considerations that battle with the preexisting natural ones for domination.

 

Through a woman's choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of selectivity that dictates the future of mankind and his destiny.

 

This ‘gatekeeper, filter role is made possible by the female's two basic characteristics:

Social Dependence

A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural tool. She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an instrument and a means to an end.

 

As such her power is achieved in how well she understands, manipulates, is assimilated, conforms and reflects the morals, values and virtues of the group she participates in and in how close to a physical aesthetic ideal she reaches that exposes her fertility and genetic history.

 

A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.

 

It is noteworthy that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it or is forced to change her religious and cultural life and rarely is it the man that is expected to do so unless he has been sufficiently emasculated and deprived of his unique identity and personality.

 

Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her temperament.

 

A man, reversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed since he can only function as a reproducer of his own kind.

 

A female is a social chameleon that mirrors the colors of her surroundings and blends into the background with little or no distinctive quality. In fact, her success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the ideal female role of her immediate environment and in how successfully she reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.

 

In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant power and finding in her "belonging" her highest achievement, women become the tools of indoctrination and genetic engineering.

 

Sexual Selection

A woman possesses the most valuable and desirable part of an ephemeral human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures and directs the propagation of the species and decides its destiny.

 

Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.

 

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits and characteristics while it condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice based on well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate; in fact she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and her cultures prejudiced virtues.

 

It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through this control to ensure their own continuance. This is one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary mechanics.

 

It is therefore a woman's aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and sacrifices towards women possible, it is also through this physical appeal and the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy ovum, that women achieve their highest power through and the means by which they manage to control men of often higher metal and physical strength than themselves.

 

These two female powers, if left unhindered by male intervention elevate women to a privileged position of social strength as a valuable asset.

The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she finds herself in and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by makes her a custodian of social conformity and a tool of genetic manipulation.

 

But a woman's choice isn't as easy as it first may appear. If she isn't a part of a culture where her choice is taken away or restricted by male dominance, she is further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:

 

1}Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework, she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious norm and by doing this has ensured his social success giving him access to resources restricted to the lawful and socially disciplined.

 

These resources are essential for women that are forced to live through a long gestation period, making them more helpless than they would normally be, and a following infant maturation process that takes decades and capital to be considered a success.

 

2}Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal, who through his natural inclinations may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud, confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our modern standards but valuable within smaller groups where individual traits become more decisive, when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially indoctrinated, tolerant and passive modern male, that is most valued within larger populations where individual traits and talents are less decisive.

 

In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group and only plays a provisional role of inseminator; then being destroyed to preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.].

 

Interesting also that where female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence of individual personality and instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing characteristic.

 

The previously mentioned two female sexual considerations are what play a part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do in contradiction to what they say. It is the cause of this supposed female

"mystique" caused also by a general male indifference, as to the inner workings of a female mind that gives women an advantage considering their insatiable appetite for the inner workings of a males mind.

 

A woman's superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.

 

It isn't, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females develop faster and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness by which she reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant and her skill in linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying social mechanics and her methods of adapting to them which establishes her position and social value.

 

But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal messages. They call this: "woman's intuition".

 

She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae of physical information, freely given off by all of us, that are needed by her to read personalities, qualities and interpersonal relationships and power struggles. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts or underlying realities.

 

Male Archetype

A man's role within a social group is a more precarious one.

He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it; he can be the determiner of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role; he can be the goal or the error.

 

The demands upon the male intellect, because of the aforementioned, are greater than in females; he must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected leader of and the environment he is forced to exist within.

 

A mans mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible, through the abstract.

 

If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the seller and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, mental flexibility and abstract thinking of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole in order to ensure his relevance and importance.

 

But these necessary characteristics of a successful male are also the source of his natural domination and the eventual control over the forces of nature that resulted in the restriction of female sexual power and made women servants to male reason.

 

For males women are only a means to an end and hold no interest to them beyond this, a fact many women use to their advantage, if they recognize it as such.

 

A mans natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can and then guide them and his offspring with his strength and power into copies of himself; modern day practices of man as caretaker and homemaker is the direct result of mans feminization where he has submitted to authorities more powerful than himself and accepted a certain mode of behavior that is expected from him while contradictory to his inclinations.

 

The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding, courageous male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to mankind's unquestionable success and has opened up frontiers for human exploitation. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.

 

Where there is uncertainty and fear, males become intrinsic, where there is safety and predictability males become detrimental to harmony and uniformity. Where there are un-chartered frontiers and unconquered worlds, men become vital, where there is un-inquisitiveness and limitations imposed upon human action and thought, men become dangerous and obtrusive.

 

Unlike women, men are not just born into value and importance by just being a member of their gender but must earn any respect and privilege or perish in the effort. It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and physical perfection and has stretched human existence to such an extent that it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this stretching has thinned out his spirit.

 

It is this creativity that is harnessed by modern societies by making all men investors in them by allowing them to procreate. An accomplishment achieved, by the way, by the subjugation of women.

 

Man himself is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men, and because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.

Is the male archetype a primitive expression of the human condition destined to become extinct or marginalized? That remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, where maleness is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed potentiality.

 

 

Sexual Attraction

The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation that hides a deeper practical motivation.

Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter

"Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction."

 

For women the game of sexual attraction has additional complications and considerations; for her the implications and consequences of a sexual relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny that makes her decision making a more complicated one.

 

Her natural instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the archetypical male. The physical and mental strength that will be inherited, through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and irresistible to her. But the further consideration of being impregnated by a male with access to material resources, that will make her long gestation comfortable and the following years of infant rearing successful, is essential to a female's choice.

 

In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials whereas in our modern world this is rarely the case.

 

In a modern social environment access to resources and material wealth is mostly accessible to males of a conforming predisposition that have been assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values of their environment. This female predisposition has enabled most males to pay the precious price [time and effort] of social ascension to reach goals given to them by external sources without question or hesitation and has facilitated their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society] as women do. This is more evident in crucial position of social status such as political posts or positions through which information and therefore indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media. Here we can see the promotion of individuals that more closely mirror the ideology of the governing elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers acquiring quick access to positions of power and influence and rewarded with affluence and privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or exhibiting any free-thought are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or ignored.

 

Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the individual male as to make any dedication to physical and mental development, impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily concerns of economic survival, consumerism and economic ascension that the ‘self’, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.

 

In modern social environments where physicality and intellectual power is not as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology and easy indoctrination that enables success, the sexual choice demanded from women is made even more difficult.

 

Her femaleness is still fascinated by maleness and all the attributes that go along with it but from a practical point of view, she must take into consideration her mates social status, wealth and conventionality as to ensure the well-being of her future offspring.

 

A further aspect of the sexual attraction game that sheds some light on how female choice is made and what romantic love is many times based on, is, what I call, the bad-boy factor.

 

The Bad-Boy Factor

It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially for males, but few really comprehend why this is so.

The founding principle of confidence is indifference to specific particulars and a poise derived by the certainty that eventual success is attainable in the general.

 

For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the self-assurance that a job will be found eventually despite any particular, specific failures, whereas non-confidence is based on the desperation of being dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes exaggerated in significance. This confidence, in turn, gets translated to physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement which desperation, through panic and anxiety, lacks.

 

That confidence rests on a foundation of indifference may be a difficult concept to accept, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where love, compassion, trust, respect and dependence are considered to be the romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity. The bad-boy factor is a case in point.

 

It is evident, to all that understand the characteristics of the bad-boy, that the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes them irresistible to females, is rooted in a general indifference caused by an overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of women, the specific individual woman becomes irrelevant, making them confident and arrogant enough to display their true male character and individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.

 

Confidence and independence also expresses an abundance of choice caused by access to superfluous resources that makes a specific supply of marginal importance.

 

For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic health, this aspect of maleness becomes attractive because it also reveals a males marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options then he must be an asset worth considering, when he has limited choices then his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes unattractive and even repulsive.

 

This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males that are married or attached somehow become more attractive to females just because they are taken by other females and it sheds some light into the phenomenon where women remain in often abusive relationships.

 

It is ironic that women find men attractive that are relatively indifferent to them specifically and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them specifically [The "nice guy" they want to remain friends with].

 

It is also noteworthy, that in a more general application of the indifference rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need, desire or obsess over and less so in the things we badly yearn for. Life itself, when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding but when we frantically deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we display the desperation and anxious strain that restricts life and limits our existence.

 

To not care does not mean to not value but it does mean to be independent from. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it, will be inevitably attracted to.

 

.........

 

Here the author has attempted to describe the differences between the genders as they came about through the individuals sexual role influencing natural selection and therefore the current gender roles as they have manifested within our species.

 

Ultimately, his inability to let go of his view that males and females cannot be interchangeable doomed his efforts to write a truly progressive story that moved beyond the sexism of ages past.

 

Finally one should note (if one cares to) that the suggestion of "progress" and it's association with Emu's ideology implies that there first exists a truth which must be transcended, overcome, progressed from in order to reach a more desirable, preferred sociality: here there is an admission that reality is a certain way but there is also a turning away towards the alternative, the Ideal wherein the inherent flaws (as judged by Emu, never forget) of reality can be escaped.

 

This is a very quaint mentality rooted as it is in the psychological phenomenon of denial. It does however offer the one holding it a rewarding sense of the pursuit of justice and equality; one should also note however that these concepts can very easily be reduced to revenge and envy, respectively.

At which point motivation can perhaps be more readily understood.

 

-----------

 

Now on the subject of Robert Jordan's sexism I find that his suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between the genders to be the root of the objections. Because already I have noticed above that there are complaints about the position of the First Prince of the Sword in Andor.

This is a matter of equality and attempts at dealing with this subject should be approached from there.

For example, when pushed, one of these objectors will note that the situation in Far Madding is equally offensive and that the men there should no doubt be properly empowered.

 

And it is this sense of a hierarchical arrangement stemming from differences and differences in power which is I think the central issue here and not gender or any other, uh.... bio-socio-political designation.

 

That one can be weak, through no fault of ones own, perhaps even as a consequence of one's nature (or merits)... and that in this uncaring indifferent world this weakness will be taken advantage of by those who are greater, relatively (exploited), that a gender can carry with it certain potentials and/or lack of potentials as a result of it's biological role selecting certain traits over a period of hundreds of millennia such that a relationship (be it romantic or simply adversarial) between these 2 differing potentials will lead to differences of power within various contexts ..... seems to me to torment and disturb the idealistic soul endlessly.

 

Which leads to the above notions about how to supposedly correct this apparent travesty. Not simply that an individual is thought to share the peculiarities of the generality to which it identifies and becomes typified but that these peculiarities must be subject to the pretense of their non-existence.

 

I, on the other hand, do not offer any way in which reality can be corrected. I do not offer anything, beyond observations. I keep my valuations of these observations to myself - out of politeness.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

I want to point out that A. Pseudonym has made a number of overtly sexist and racist comments in the past, in the form of PMs to me on these subjects. I posted some of them in the Debates & Discussions thread not long ago, but the post was deleted since I had forgotten that Dragonmount forum rules prevent us from posting the contents of private messages.

 

Anyhow, I just want to say that you should take anything this guy says with a serious, big-time grain of salt.

 

@FarShainMael:

You make a decent point and request, asking me to ask what you think rather than assume. I had something along those lines in my original post, but I edited out along with a bunch of other stuff to make the post shorter. (Yes, if you can believe it, what you see above is the short version.) No hard feelings, I hope!

[Apple13]

I'd say that there is quite a bit of sexism in the WoT series. I'm not saying that one gender is portrayed as somehow better than the other, but I dislike the fact that males and females often have a few very generalized characteristics, with very few exceptions. The women all want to take charge, and control what the men do. The men all have to protect the women (whether or not they want it), and feel the women are too mysterious to comprehend. It's a bit of a caricature (especially in the case of the women, I think) and it doesn't take into consideration that most people in real are very different, and not all women are ovebearing to everyone they meet, and not all men are willing to risk their life to protect women (whether they like it or not). I think the problem could be solved by having a few more men-women friendships in the story, but except for the Mat-Birgitte one (which only works because Birgitte likes drinking and stuff like Mat), there aren't any good examples. The women always work together, and while the men work alone, they mostly support one another. You can say that it's not sexism because one sex isn't portrayed as "bad". But I say that it is a little discriminatory, since it doesn't show how different people can be within one gender.

 

Plus, there's the spanking. I don't get the deal with the spanking.

[Puny]

I want to point out that A. Pseudonym has made a number of overtly sexist and racist comments in the past, in the form of PMs to me on these subjects. I posted some of them in the Debates & Discussions thread not long ago, but the post was deleted since I had forgotten that Dragonmount forum rules prevent us from posting the contents of private messages.

 

Anyhow, I just want to say that you should take anything this guy says with a serious, big-time grain of salt.

 

@FarShainMael:

You make a decent point and request, asking me to ask what you think rather than assume. I had something along those lines in my original post, but I edited out along with a bunch of other stuff to make the post shorter. (Yes, if you can believe it, what you see above is the short version.) No hard feelings, I hope!

 

If that is so about Pseudonym show it to the mods and get him banned. Or is racism allowed on this forum ?

About the other things he says.... we can make up our own minds I think but we will be ready with the salt nontheless

[Suttree]

I want to point out that A. Pseudonym has made a number of overtly sexist and racist comments in the past, in the form of PMs to me on these subjects. I posted some of them in the Debates & Discussions thread not long ago, but the post was deleted since I had forgotten that Dragonmount forum rules prevent us from posting the contents of private messages.

 

Anyhow, I just want to say that you should take anything this guy says with a serious, big-time grain of salt.

 

@FarShainMael:

You make a decent point and request, asking me to ask what you think rather than assume. I had something along those lines in my original post, but I edited out along with a bunch of other stuff to make the post shorter. (Yes, if you can believe it, what you see above is the short version.) No hard feelings, I hope!

 

If that is so about Pseudonym show it to the mods and get him banned. Or is racism allowed on this forum ?

About the other things he says.... we can make up our own minds I think but we will be ready with the salt nontheless

 

Yeah thats a tough one...if Pseudonym was engaging in that behavior you would think it would get a ban.

 

On the flip side Emu has been less than honest when referring to my own posts in the past so...grain of salt on both sides?

[Kahsm]

Please pick up the book "Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace". These disgusting attempts at academise has caused a pandemic of wordiness.

 

Yes, gender is a sliding-scale construct variable while sex is a biological black/white. This is why academic surveys ask for "sex" not "gender".

 

But that's irrelevant because we all knew what we were talking about. If we all proceed using either term but with the same meaning in mind -- there's no problem. We're talking about sexism. If someone happens to say 'gender' in their post, a smart person, given the topic's context, should easily deduce that they mean sex and continue onward with the discussion at hand.

 

A. Pseudonym seems to be justifying his own personal support of sexism, or what he calls his, "valuations of these observations" (for whatever reason he couldn't say "opinions" or something). He pointed out that it's some of our "opinion" that being sex-neutral (see what I did there?) is "progressive". Which I suppose is true. Though it does appear to be the direction western society, where most of us are from, is headed. So since society as a whole has been trying to tackle sexism in various right or wrong ways for decades, I think it's safe to say a truly sex-neutral story would be very much "progressive" in a western society context.

 

However, there's no requirement on RJ to write a story like that. They are his characters, it's his world, he could make them all sexist/racist/homophobes if he wanted. WoT is not a manual on life, as much as I wish it could teach me to channel, and there's no reason to believe RJ thinks the way his characters do just because he wrote them.

[EpitomyofShyness]

My personal feelings, are that often times the characters themselves are sexist. For me, considering that even with all of our modern thinking sexism is still very prevalent in society, having characters who are not sexist, (and a lot of WoT characters who I like are certainly sexist) would detract from the story.

 

Now, I acknowledge that at times RJ can make generalizations. For example, most of his female characters are, arrogant and over-bearing, to the point where in my teenage years I was tempted to skip chapters, and hated the only female characters in the books.

 

Most of his male characters, are over-protective, and at their hearts 'gentle-giants'. This also got annoying eventually.

 

Whether or not these 'generalizations' were intentional... I don't know. They've cause me much hair pulling/braid tugging , but overall I still love the WoT, and whatever sexism may be present in the series it certainly wouldn't be enough to prevent me from recommending the books to anyone.

 

(just want to note that I am a girl, May you all find Water and Shade )

[Othniel]

One other little observation to add to what has already been said:

 

The way Jordan introduces sex into the story is telling. While male-on-female rape is mentioned on occasion, it's almost never shown. (Note: I haven't read the Sanderson books yet, so maybe I'm missing something.) The only case I can recall is something hinted in a scene with Padan Fain in LoC--and here it was clearly being presented as a *very bad* thing.

 

By contrast, there are at least two cases of something rather like female-on-male rape, each of which is all but condoned by Jordan. One appears in New Spring, with Lan having pretty much no choice about having sex with someone. (I suppose the business with Myrelle in CoS is of this sort, too, although we never really see what happens there.) The other is the more famous case of Mat and Tylin. Basically, Jordan certainly doesn't condemn what the women so in these scenes. For that matter, neither do the other "good" characters, such as Elayne, who make fun of Mat and all but applaud the situation.

 

Further, whenever consensual sex makes it way onto the scene, it's virtually always initiated by the woman. Examples: (1) Faile and her talking like a forward Saldean farmgirl, (2) both Aviendha and Min grabbing Rand's hair and pulling him to them when he's about to back away, (3) Elayne asking Rand to undo her buttons, (4) Myrelle with Lan (again, we are invited to make some assumptions here), (5) Melindra, who propositions Mat in FoH, rather than the other way around. Can anyone think of times where it goes the other way around? We know that Mat chases women, but we never see that chasing actually amounting to anything in the story, to we? (Again, I don't know what happens in the Sanderson novels...)

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

With regard to the rape, I suspect that RJ simply did not understand that the severity and ugliness of rape holds true even when the aggressor is a female.

 

With regard to the consensual sex being initiated primarily by females, that's a very common fantasy among males and quite common as a real-world practice too, especially in Western countries. RJ was probably indulging himself.

[CaseyWoL]

What one of the guys at the beginning said. There aren't any sexist comments going on. Being "wool-headed" is not exclusive to men, it's just a comment thrown in to illustrate the gender differences. In other words, women don't get men and vice versa.

 

Even the Aes Sedai looking down on Ashaman is not sexist when you consider the Seanchan looking down on Aes Sedai and leashing them. In that regard they're treated much worse.

[Durinax]

if you want to see sexist remarks, just read about the red ajah and their dealings with men

[NetSlider]

People that say that there is sexism are stupid, blind, and probably drunk (to paraphrase Tam). The only credible point I've ever seen mentioned is the fate of women compared to men (being raped, made slaves, tortured, etc. while men simply are killed for the most part). It does appear women get a shorter end of the stick in many cases but I don't think it means anything deeper than that.

As far as stereotyping comments about either sexes, it's called gender interaction. There has to be one if there to be a story.

If anything, WoT is actually very open to women's power and a lot more progressive that our world. Where do you find a place like Abu Dar (sp?) or WT or even Andor (queens only). So again, I think that sexism charge is not but a smoke from an....chimny...

[Suttree]

For instance, he depicted both of the world’s two deities as male, and depicted the strongest, most dextrous male channelers as superior to the strongest, most dextrous female channelers.

 

I might have missed but are there any depictions of the Creator whatsoever to say if it is M or F? Either way I don't rightly see how that this could be considered sexist.

 

As for channelers I know we have this to go off...

 

RJ's blog 2 October 2005 "ONE MORE TIME"

Men can be much stronger than women in the pure quantity of the Power that they can channel, but on a practical level, women are much more deft in their weaving and that means the strongest possible woman can do just about anything that the strongest possible man could, and to the same degree.

[Guest Emu on the Loose]

I might have missed but are there any depictions of the Creator whatsoever to say if it is M or F? Either way I don't rightly see how that this could be considered sexist.

The Creator is assumed male, and described as such, by characters throughout the story. They might be mistaken, but there's no suggestion anywhere at any point that the Creator is female, and in a female-dominated world like Randland that's odd. More straightforwardly, however, RJ was the kind of author where what you saw is what you got. Since the Creator is casually referred to as male, then, unless it were intended to be some kind of plot twist, either the Creator is male or sexless. Given the Dark One's male characteristics, such an inference about the Creator is not unreasonable.

 

Although if you're trying to point out that it's not a certainty, you'd be right.

 

As to why it's sexist for a world with gods to have a male one but not a female one, I leave that as a philosophical exercise for you to ponder on your own time. Hint: Sex is a very specific and narrow trait which occurs only in a minority of species and evolved solely because it improves genetic diversity and thus speciary viability, yet has been abused by humans as a dividing line to control and mistreat half the population.

 

As for channelers I know we have this to go off...

 

RJ's blog 2 October 2005 "ONE MORE TIME"

Men can be much stronger than women in the pure quantity of the Power that they can channel, but on a practical level, women are much more deft in their weaving and that means the strongest possible woman can do just about anything that the strongest possible man could, and to the same degree.

With regard to that:

 

 

Re: Lanfear and Rand at the docks.

RJ: She was just toying with him using her angreal, [while he used the little fat man]. They were pretty well matched.

Q: Was Rand correct in his estimation (based on Lews Therin’s memories) that he could end it if he wanted to?

RJ: Yes. But of course, Rand couldn't.

 

https://docs.google.com/View?docID=dcjspjqg_833hc472s45&revision=_latest&pli=1

 

So, in the author's mind, the best female channeler alive could have been bested by the best male channeler alive--who, incidentally, was far from reaching the height of his powers at that point. RJ contradicted himself by stating (in the citation you provided) that males and females are equal but then creating a world where farmboy Rand could have brought down Lanfear if he'd wanted to.

 

So, what are the in-character possibilities to explain this contradiction? Well, one is to argue that his angreal was significantly stronger than hers. The other is to invoke Lanfear's insanity as somehow hindering her ability to channel effectively. Either argument would go against what was implied in the scene at the docks.

 

The out-of-character possibility is that RJ was wrong in one of his two statements, due to competing interests or lack of attention to detail. This is the strongest of the possibilities, as it fits with RJ's trends of telling readers that males and females are separate but equal yet showing this not to be the case.

[Puny]

Hmm, where is the Creator ever described as male or female? I know there are lots of references to the Dragon, he shall blind us, he shall destroy us and so on and so forth, but were do they ever say, the Creator, why can´t he let it rain?

 

Maybe I´ve missed those references but I can´t remember them...

[hazelkrs1]

Really interesting thread here, although it has approached the combative arena somewhat, but then sexism is a very polarizing issue so I suppose this is to be expected. I find that I agree largely with much that is said in this thread, except when concerning RJ's vision in creating this world. RJ said he was trying to create a gender-equal world, and it is true that he failed in this respect. However, his story can't be said to be conservative, dogmatic, or limited in it's view of a society apart from our own. I believe his actual intent might really have been to illustrate both the differences and similarities in men and women, while at the same time strongly suggesting that the ideal world would be one in which both genders are codependant and exist in perfect harmony.

 

Frankly, I find this to be incredibly obvious, in the history of the world, the symbology, the character's interaction, the clues hidden in prophecy. The history of the world part has been addressed, after the Breaking male channelers were essentially the greatest threat to human survival, so a culture was formed in response to this environment, a culture of misandry. It has also been brought up that before the Breaking, the greatest feats accomplished with the OP were done with men and women working in tandem. Then we have the ancient symbol of Aes Sedai. It's obviously representative of the yin-yang symbol , which is used to describe balance in nature, but specifically applied to the balance between men and women as well. The idea of yin vs. yang is so much more complex than that, so I leave it up to you to look further into it if it interests you.

 

The overall inference we are led to make, is that men and women can and should coexist in harmony together, despite or perhaps because of all the differences between us. And it's true that we share much more in common with eachother than whatever differences there are, and obviously neither sex should be considered superior to the other. At the same time it's silly to downplay the differences between us as trivial, or insignifigant. It's goes along the same kind of folly like the idea that we should all be "colorblind". It's ludicrous for the totality of the human race, which contains a multitude of various cultures, heritages, traditions, even physical traits, to feign homogeneity. We shouldn't try to ignore that which sets us apart from one another, we should celebrate the differences between us for they illustrate the wondrous capability for diversity and progression in our species. Likewise, we shouldn't try to pretend men and women are the same; they're not, and the differences aren't just minor physiological ones either. We are inherently different, and whether these differences came by due to evolution of certain traits, genetic development, grand design of the Creator (may her glory sustain us to eternity ), or societal progression, it all amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

I'd like to think that whether you believe in God, in nature, or whatever else can be used as a replacement for a higher power, you assume that our world has a certain, beauty to it. Things seem to progress in the right direction, and life has flourished on this planet for millions of years, so I think something seems to be working. My point is, unless you assume the system of life is crazy flawed and that everything will end up in the muk, you'd have to agree that whatever tools Whoever is using to shape life on Earth have done the job well. Although male masogynistic societies grew somewhat too common for a period, and there have been many who have taken advantage of the power balance between men and women, alltogether things have gone fairly smoothly between men and women for quite some time. I really think the only time things went really backwards for a time was when christianity was growing in power and influence and used the concept of original sin to greatly suppress not just women in general, but the idea of the somewhat spiritual "feminine mystique". But that was pretty much covered in the Da Vinci Code, so let's move on.

 

We've come to assume the roles that have the best chance of playing off eachother well, these roles have changed many times throughout our history but those roles have never been the same. It's true that we compartmentalize eachother way too often, and constantly seek acceptance in society by trying to figure what "side" were on, when we should realize that were all on the same side anyways.

 

 

As for some of the other things I noticed in this thread:

 

Emu would you be able to provide an example of the Creator being refered to as male? I too do not recall there ever being a gender implied. Incidentally, I find it amusing that we are constantly trying to personify God, whether it's by assuming he wears skirts or slacks, or imagining him as having a big white beard, or as having a bad temper. How can ANY of us ever presume to understand the nature of a higher power?!?!

 

 

Emu, you said men developed a stronger level of agression because we fought for our mates, but why did it happen that way? Why didn't the females originally fight over us males, thus becoming the "stronger" sex?

 

Sorry to pick on you Emu, but on the point you were making about testosterone levels, whaaaa?! Of course there's a large level of variance between levels of testosterone in men, but the point is that we always have a good deal more than women. That there's less of a difference between the testosterone levels of the, you're going to hate my terminology here I apologize in advance, most "butch" woman and the most effeminate man than there is between the most effeminate man and the most roided out dude isn't relevant when you still have no examples of a case where a woman has more testosterone than a man. You also played around with statistics even more by assuming that half of men have testosterone levels closer to women than they do with the gymbound hulkster. The bell curve that would justify that statement doesn't exist. Plus, it's been said that there is less difference between the iq of a somewhat dimwitted fellow and a chimpanzee than there is between a somewhat dimwitted fellow and the Einsteins of the world. Does this mean that we're not really much smarter than chimps? Heck no, it just means that while were a good bit smarter than them, there also exists a very wide range of intelligence in us.

 

As for Pseudonym, while that link was an interesting read, don't get too caught up in the intellectual hyperphilosophies that are thrown around so often. While he raises some interesting points, trying to whittle all of humanity into two archetypes with such base motivations and aspirations isn't just stupid, it's Freud level stupid. I think people do forget that we are still animals, and as such have instincts and needs which bely the trappings of civilized society, but the fact remains that we have adapted into the most complex species on Earth, and the vast majority of the base, animalistic side of us has been repressed for thousands of years. Any mook can pick up a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince and decide we're all still basically apes, and the one with the biggest stick will make it out on top, but the fact is there really is a different set of rules for advancement in today's society.

 

Lastly, a few have said that RJ's characters are shallow, or sexist by design because they all emulate the stereotypical traits respective to their specific gender. Sadly, this is true, and really the only knock against the series in my book. However, this series in the end, no matter how many other social issues it addresses or philosophical conversations it inspires, is still a tale of good vs. evil. And it's one of the more difficult things in writing to create extremely complex characters when you have to fill the archetype roles of "savior", "hero", "villain", etc. So cut him some slack, y'all!

[UncleButcher1980]

May you shelter in the palm of the Creator's hand, and may the last embrace of the mother welcome you home

[Mr Ares]

I understand that RJ's intention was to write a gender equal world, but he ended up leaning too far to the other side again (what's the word for female chauvinists? and no, it itsn't feminist...)

The word you're looking for would be chauvinist - it's not a sex spceific term, women can be chauvinists as well (hence why the term male chauvinist is used, as opposed to just chauvinist). It was actually a term initially coined to... wake up. To describe excessive nationalism, IIRC.

 

 

For instance, he depicted both of the world’s two deities as male, and depicted the strongest, most dextrous male channelers as superior to the strongest, most dextrous female channelers.

 

I might have missed but are there any depictions of the Creator whatsoever to say if it is M or F? Either way I don't rightly see how that this could be considered sexist.

The Creator and Shai'tan are not strictly speaking either male or female (I believe RJ said as much). However, for Shai'tan at least male pronouns are used. "It" would, after all, be rather inaccurate. How should Shai'tan be referred to? As for the sexism in having two male deities, look at the problem of having one of each - the male one is evil and the female is good, for instance. People won't read anything sexist into that. So do you simply avoid dualistic theologies altogether, for fear of sexist interpretations being given to your work no matter what you do? Do you have your characters refer to the gods interchangeably as he or she, according to personal preference or national tradition? Or do you use he and then mention at some point that strictly speaking it isn't male or female, and people are simply hamstrung by the limitations of the language?

[MasterAblar]

.

As for channelers I know we have this to go off...

 

RJ's blog 2 October 2005 "ONE MORE TIME"

Men can be much stronger than women in the pure quantity of the Power that they can channel, but on a practical level, women are much more deft in their weaving and that means the strongest possible woman can do just about anything that the strongest possible man could, and to the same degree.

With regard to that:

 

 

Re: Lanfear and Rand at the docks.

RJ: She was just toying with him using her angreal, [while he used the little fat man]. They were pretty well matched.

Q: Was Rand correct in his estimation (based on Lews Therin’s memories) that he could end it if he wanted to?

RJ: Yes. But of course, Rand couldn't.

 

https://docs.google.com/View?docID=dcjspjqg_833hc472s45&revision=_latest&pli=1

 

So, in the author's mind, the best female channeler alive could have been bested by the best male channeler alive--who, incidentally, was far from reaching the height of his powers at that point. RJ contradicted himself by stating (in the citation you provided) that males and females are equal but then creating a world where farmboy Rand could have brought down Lanfear if he'd wanted to.

 

So, what are the in-character possibilities to explain this contradiction? Well, one is to argue that his angreal was significantly stronger than hers. The other is to invoke Lanfear's insanity as somehow hindering her ability to channel effectively. Either argument would go against what was implied in the scene at the docks.

 

The out-of-character possibility is that RJ was wrong in one of his two statements, due to competing interests or lack of attention to detail. This is the strongest of the possibilities, as it fits with RJ's trends of telling readers that males and females are separate but equal yet showing this not to be the case.

 

But that's just fighting abilty. Lanfear could presumably crush LTT in TAR but that doesn't mean she is a better channeler. It just means she's more skilled as a dreamer. Perhaps LTT was just an incredible fighter. And that doesn't even have to be strictly related to the power either. Some people just have a fighter mentality whereas others don't. Aginor was nearly as strong as LTT and a great channeler but he wasn't particularly good at fighting. You can't judge a channeler's overall value just by their fighting ability. Elayne is better at making terangeal than Egwene but that doesn't mean she a better channeler, nor does Egwene's ability to make cuendillar make her better, they jury mean they are skilled in different areas. Ishamael was just as strong as LTT but he was still beaten by him.

 

Also it may be that men have an advantage in direct confrontations. Afterall Rahvin was confident he could overwhelm her as well. And we know that men are better at some forms of healing than women and women are probably better at other things. There are probably plenty of differences between men and women that we don't know of. In any case you can't judge a persons overall worth and ability as a channeler based just on their ability to win in a fight.

[Zentari]

As to why it's sexist for a world with gods to have a male one but not a female one, I leave that as a philosophical exercise for you to ponder on your own time. Hint: Sex is a very specific and narrow trait which occurs only in a minority of species and evolved solely because it improves genetic diversity and thus speciary viability, yet has been abused by humans as a dividing line to control and mistreat half the population.

Specific and narrow trait ? Are you using some kind of new dictionary I'm perhaps unaware of ?

Especially given how much of a fundamental basis sex (or gender, w/e) is.

 

So, in the author's mind, the best female channeler alive could have been bested by the best male channeler alive--who, incidentally, was far from reaching the height of his powers at that point. RJ contradicted himself by stating (in the citation you provided) that males and females are equal but then creating a world where farmboy Rand could have brought down Lanfear if he'd wanted to.

 

 

So, what are the in-character possibilities to explain this contradiction? Well, one is to argue that his angreal was significantly stronger than hers. The other is to invoke Lanfear's insanity as somehow hindering her ability to channel effectively. Either argument would go against what was implied in the scene at the docks.

How so ? Both arguments are pretty valid given what went on that day.Take into account the nature of the confrontation : Lanfear went hysterical and throwed everything she had at Rand without regard for anything else.While it might not hinder her ability to channel effectively , it WOULD hinder her ability to respond with the correct weaves, not to mention using brute force instead dexterity against someone who is, by definition, better at it is not a good idea.Something that would have occurred to her,were she not in such a frenzy.

 

 

The out-of-character possibility is that RJ was wrong in one of his two statements, due to competing interests or lack of attention to detail. This is the strongest of the possibilities, as it fits with RJ's trends of telling readers that males and females are separate but equal yet showing this not to be the case.

Nice argument there.