The complaint about sexism

[Suttree]

The Creator is assumed male, and described as such, by characters throughout the story.

 

This isn't true. If you can provide an example please do. The whole "last embrace of the Mother" is the only time I can recall sex being mentioned.

 

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.

 

How do you take evidence from one "fight" and take that to mean RJ made a world where "most dextrous male channelers as superior to the strongest, most dextrous female channelers." Battle weaves are one small aspect of channeling, it is faulty logic to take that incident as proof of your claim above.

[XXX]

Isn't that implied sexism by itself that the most powerful man is better at battle weaves than the most powerful woman..?

 

If RJ intended to create a gender neutral world..he failed totally in every respect.

[Zentari]

Isn't that implied sexism by itself that the most powerful man is better at battle weaves than the most powerful woman..?

Would it still be sexist if the comparison was between the world's heaviest boxers , one man one woman ?

 

If RJ intended to create a gender neutral world..he failed totally in every respect.

On the first part , I agree.Not sure about the totally part.

[Durinax]

actually it is impossible to create anything close to gender neutral. If there is a man that beats a woman in anything someone will read into it as being sexism.

 

as for rand being able to beat lanfear at that point, it could be because of a surprise attack, etc. he wasnt shielded and lanfear musta figured he wouldnt hit a woman. So it is indeed not sexist to say that.

[Othniel]

I don't think the "Mother" in the "last embrace of the Mother" is supposed to refer to the Creator. I think it's supposed to refer to the earth itself. The earth is "embracing" the dead when the dead is buried, and when the dead decomposes to earth. In assigning the female gender to the earth, RJ might just be assuming a standard motif that we get from ancient polytheism, which has crept into common language (e.g., "Mother Nature").

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

i think he point about the creator not being assigned to a specific gender in the WOT is accurate. also it seems to be the light that is actually worshipped, or followed, or what have you, and the light is also gender non-sepcific.

[Suttree]

Isn't that implied sexism by itself that the most powerful man is better at battle weaves than the most powerful woman..?

 

Not at all, it means someone can possibly better at one particular type of channeling than others. We have seen different people have affinity for different things ie Nynaeve and healing. An incident like that offers zero proof to an overarching statement like: "most dextrous male channelers as superior to the strongest, most dextrous female channelers."

 

I don't think the "Mother" in the "last embrace of the Mother" is supposed to refer to the Creator.

 

I agree, and think The Creator is gender neutral, but it is the only time we have sex mentioned in regards to the topic.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I agree that the Creator is gender-neutral, especially taking into account he/she/it is never adressed as "Father". The Sea Folk call the DO "The Father of Storms" if I recall.

 

Rand vs. Lanfear - we have to take into account that Rand/LTT is our main hero, messiah and so - a very special person. The fact that he is able to beat Lanfear does not mean that always the best male channeler will be able to best the best female channeler.

 

It would be funny if the Creator turned out to be female and the DO male - based on analogy with Saidar (gentle) and Saidin (more violent and destructive).

[CaseyWoL]

 

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.

 

 

That Rand could have brought down Lanfear is only a matter of him being the dragon reborn. I would doubt it's related to gender differences.

 

+ he's Taveren.

[A. Pseudonym]

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.

 

Well, I am not sure about "intellectual hyper philosophy"; it seems rather simply and directly stated to me, and describes what I have seen but what very few people have put words to. Perhaps the nature of language necessitates complexity when you are striving for precision. But if you disagree with the author then I suggest registering on that site.

 

As to your point about an institutionalized mind being necessary for "advancement" in the modern world, yes, but then the institution itself, or the State, or society or whatever you call it, is a self-interested entity and will not permit entry into it's hierarchy any of those who will not be champions and exemplars of it's ideals - whatever those may be.

One people's King is another people's madman. Look at history.

 

But then it has to start somewhere so perhaps the most valuable sort of human being is the one who determines what the ideals of the State, or in other words the will of the people, becomes. The most valuable, but also the most threatening.

[hazelkrs1]

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.

 

Well, I am not sure about "intellectual hyper philosophy"; it seems rather simply and directly stated to me, and describes what I have seen but what very few people have put words to. Perhaps the nature of language necessitates complexity when you are striving for precision. But if you disagree with the author then I suggest registering on that site.

 

As to your point about an institutionalized mind being necessary for "advancement" in the modern world, yes, but then the institution itself, or the State, or society or whatever you call it, is a self-interested entity and will not permit entry into it's hierarchy any of those who will not be champions and exemplars of it's ideals - whatever those may be.

One people's King is another people's madman. Look at history.

 

But then it has to start somewhere so perhaps the most valuable sort of human being is the one who determines what the ideals of the State, or in other words the will of the people, becomes. The most valuable, but also the most threatening.

 

One thing that you're forgetting though, is that society is a conglomeration, not a homogenized group of people that all share the same perspective. It is possible to have subgroups within society that might have rigidly defined morals and principles, but in general all you have is a loose code of ethics. Not only that, but the counterculture element in today's society has considerable influence, and especially all with the crossculture interaction going on across the world, it's more open than ever for a bold individual more like the "archetype male" in the article to enter, and even dominate society's hierarchy.

 

The other principle flaw in the article is what you said yourself, it states it theory simply. Problem is, it states it too simply, to the point where many of the other layers of factors in shaping our culture are left out. The relationship between men and women has grown more and more complex over the years, and is scrutinized with enough effort that there are many different facets of many different perspectives to consider.

 

The thing I disagree most with, is the general idea that women inherently want to mate and thus propogate the species, and in order to do so must conform to society's ideals to the point where no individuality exists. I strongly disagree with both of these points, and they are fairly central to the entire premise of the article. It is one of the purposes, biologically speaking, that females have in society, however the role of a childbearer is still one that is chosen for the most part. Our culture has stressed the importance of having families in a big way, with early mild brainwashing, tax and legal exceptions, and other methods, and yet you still have many women who choose to never start a family. Not only that, but whatever subconscious, genetically imprinted directions you might have which tell you who to mate with, men still have a wide variety of taste in woman. Recently a poll came out, which indicated the quality guys care the best about in a mate is loyalty, and intelligence was the quality they cared the least about. I value loyalty obviously, but for me intelligence is also a huge factor; incidentally one of the other qualities I have found to desire in women is individuality. I don't want a stick in the mud who will cook, clean, and laugh at all my jokes for me. My fiance rarely does any of those things lol! But I wouldn't trade her fiery personality, clever mind, or undying loyalty for anyone else in the world.

[SharpDressedAsha'Man]

I agree, and think The Creator is gender neutral, but it is the only time we have sex mentioned in regards to the topic.

After Rand is reunited with Tam in TGS and he gets all angsty, he refers to the Creator as the Creator himself.

I'm not sure if any other mentions along those lines have been made, I only remember that one because I finished re-reading it last night.

[Suttree]

I agree, and think The Creator is gender neutral, but it is the only time we have sex mentioned in regards to the topic.

After Rand is reunited with Tam in TGS and he gets all angsty, he refers to the Creator as the Creator himself.

I'm not sure if any other mentions along those lines have been made, I only remember that one because I finished re-reading it last night.

 

Great catch Sharp!

 

Only thing with that though, since it is TGS one has to wonder if it might be just a BS slip like "bloody ashes". I wonder if it is used that way in tEoTW-KoD?

[A. Pseudonym]

One thing that you're forgetting though, is that society is a conglomeration, not a homogenized group of people that all share the same perspective. It is possible to have subgroups within society that might have rigidly defined morals and principles, but in general all you have is a loose code of ethics. Not only that, but the counterculture element in today's society has considerable influence, and especially all with the crossculture interaction going on across the world, it's more open than ever for a bold individual more like the "archetype male" in the article to enter, and even dominate society's hierarchy.

 

Yes... that is what I was saying. Humanity is a competitive multiplicity of ideologies all striving for supremacy. What is important is which is supreme at any one time and how this affects you.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc&feature=player_embedded

 

Make a video about a girl having her clitoris and vaginal lips cut off, by a male, and have some retarded yuppies giggling about it. Then wonder why wound up clockwork little men suddenly start to chime.

 

There is a difference between men and women; men are expendable, women are a resource to be protected. Simply put, they have ovum. A limited supply of ovum, moreover. While any man could repopulate the earth singlehandedly. This I think is the farthest you could reduce the qualatative difference between the value of men and women.

 

The consequence of this then is that a woman can become a sexual selector, gravitating towards the dominant male as he represents the best genes available and his status represents the best possible future for her children. A man is a means to an end; the end is always the child.

For a man, this becomes a necessity to compete with other males and to prove his worth as fine genetic stock. Which leads to a more domineering and challenging nature requiring aggression, ingenuity, invention in order to succeed.

 

The problem in modern times however is that the usual symbolry implying masculinity has become just that - little more than symbolry. The modern male, who as some have have put it has transcended his "primitive animal behaviours", is an emasculated beta subservient to the true and only alpha: the institution. Which leads to the problem women have between choosing the nice guy or the bad boy - compromise or excitement.

 

The other principle flaw in the article is what you said yourself, it states it theory simply.

 

I am confused. Is it both "intellectual hyper philosophy" and overly simplistic? Because I find that an insightful idea stated simply is quite powerful.

 

You can give exceptions to the general as much as you like, but that generality still has relevance as a tool to describe and understand individuals among that generality.

As an example, you don't categorize a species by looking at one individual and then looking for another identical individual to lump it together with; you look for commonalities across a multitude and base your description of that species upon those commonalities.

 

The thing I disagree most with, is the general idea that women inherently want to mate and thus propogate the species, and in order to do so must conform to society's ideals to the point where no individuality exists

 

Well, since such an instinct would make reproduction more likely and therefore more likely for that instinct to be passed on.... I don't see the error here. Childless women won't pass on their individual peculiarities to another generation; that is if the peculiarities we are talking about are the product of genetics (nature) or an acquired behaviour (nurture). Either way they are squandering their genetic distinctiveness and will thereby be eliminated from the pool.

 

As to your second point, I believe the author primarily described dominant and submissive psychologies and then extended this into a description of the sexes based on their sexual and social roles. Whether this extension is accurate or not you can decide for yourself. However one should note that a woman's sexual role is to allow a foreign body to penetrate hers and deposit it's seed in order to reproduce.

Don't you suspect that in the female this necessity of reproduction would select for a particular mindset which would better fascilitate this? A more submissive attitude which would be receptive to the domineering, penetrative act of the male.... that would find it attractive? An attitude that searches for the most dominant, most worthy male to submit to, in order to produce the most successful offspring?

And couldn't this inclination in turn be redirected towards a social instinct (as most sexual instincts inevitably are) of submission to the most powerful contemporary ideology? And wouldn't a male's inherent inclination towards seeking dominance lead him to challenge what is powerful and either prove his worth or perish in the attempt?

In either of these there is much wisdom and much stupidity... but neither are to be shamed or denied.

But to return this to the subject, which is RJ's wonderfully superfluous fantasy yarn, consider the difference he wrote into saidin and saidar.

Saidin: raging fire and ice, must be dominated, seized in order to be controlled.

Saidar: a calm river, must be submitted to, embraced, in order to be guided.

Now think about how Moiraine dealt with Rand in Cairhien. She tried to overawe him with her Aes Sedai bullshit, but he fought against an authority figure as he saw her and pushed her away. So instead she submitted to him, humbled herself before him and through the growing pity her behaviour instilled in him eventually had him eating out of her hand.

 

So the point here is that submission as an aspect of feminity is not necessarily a lack of power, but is itself a worthwhile tactic employed by an entire gender entirely to their own benefit.

 

Why else do you think that a chivalric sentiment is so common?

[hazelkrs1]

One thing that you're forgetting though, is that society is a conglomeration, not a homogenized group of people that all share the same perspective. It is possible to have subgroups within society that might have rigidly defined morals and principles, but in general all you have is a loose code of ethics. Not only that, but the counterculture element in today's society has considerable influence, and especially all with the crossculture interaction going on across the world, it's more open than ever for a bold individual more like the "archetype male" in the article to enter, and even dominate society's hierarchy.

 

Yes... that is what I was saying. Humanity is a competitive multiplicity of ideologies all striving for supremacy. What is important is which is supreme at any one time and how this affects you.

 

I was responding to this statement (the part in bold):

 

As to your point about an institutionalized mind being necessary for "advancement" in the modern world, yes, but then the institution itself, or the State, or society or whatever you call it, is a self-interested entity and will not permit entry into it's hierarchy any of those who will not be champions and exemplars of it's ideals - whatever those may be.

One people's King is another people's madman. Look at history.

 

 

My point was the institution as you describe it has no rigid morals, mores, or ideals. Just a loose conglomeration of many different ones that lends to an overall picture of that society's values, and that picture is constantly changing as the individual componenents of society evolve. No matter how small of a community you look at, there's bound to be contradicting perspectives about what is ethical and what isn't, and the differences can be very signifigant. Thus, an "archetype male" really always has an opportunity to emerge as a champion of his society's ideals, even if he was the one who actually changed many of them.

 

Make a video about a girl having her clitoris and vaginal lips cut off, by a male, and have some retarded yuppies giggling about it. Then wonder why wound up clockwork little men suddenly start to chime.

 

 

That video had so much less to do with feminism than you would believe. Sharon Osbourne, the main culprit as far as who was making light of the manner, is known to be addicted to the limelight, and cameras, and attention, and will say or do almost anything to get more exposure. It makes it easier for her to get an easy laugh in this instance, but that's not really because of any socio-biological gender issues at all. Men have been conditioned through our entire existence to become physically and mentally tough, for some of the reasons you put forth, along with a couple of others. Every culture in the world is filled with games, rites of passage, contests, and many other activities which all involve men voluntarily inflicting pain on ourselves or other men. This is fairly easy to see why this happened, primitive man's existence was much like the environment the Aiel grew up in: unforgiving, filled with duress and struggle, and probably boring. Just like the Aiel said the Threefold land was there to punish them, shape them, and to prove them. All those activities which include self-mortification, self-mutilation, or any other examples of men putting themselves through pain was a part of this. It wasn't just to impress women, it was also a way of proving a man's worth in his community.

 

As we evolved out of these much more difficult times, these activities transitioned into less abusive practices that still go on today, like Irish stand down (ask a drunk Irishman to play and you'll learn quick), quarters, knuckleflicking, etc. We don't need these nearly as much in today's society for there are many other ways for a man to prove his worth now, but old habits die hard. The humorous part that comes from all of this though, actually has nothing to do with gender either: Schadenfreude. We enjoy laughing and taking comfort in the misery of others. The groin shot on cinema is literally the easiest payoff you can get for a joke, we see a guy get racked, we all know it must hurt considerably, so we laugh. Schadenfreude is not limited to men, there have been famous female comedians who employed it regularly in their act, Lucille Ball comes to mind. We see it happen more to men, but that has more to do with the sexism built into our culture which has created an enormously lopsided margin in the amount of male protagonists vs. female ones.

 

Incidentally, the continuation of those rituals, which have become needless for most in today's world, is eerily reminiscent of the internal conflict in Aviendha during ToM: Why seek punishment for something they've already atoned for by returning to the Threefold land? Why should we continue to hurt ourselves for no reason when it isn't necessary to prove your worth by showing how high your pain threshold is? I blame Jackass.

 

(just kidding)

 

There is a difference between men and women; men are expendable, women are a resource to be protected. Simply put, they have ovum. A limited supply of ovum, moreover. While any man could repopulate the earth singlehandedly. This I think is the farthest you could reduce the qualatative difference between the value of men and women.

 

 

Wrong. I can reduce the qualitative difference between the "value" of men and women to this much: ZERO. One gender cannot exist without the other in our current biological makeup, both are needed for reproduction. Thus, we have equal value, biologically speaking. Yes, men can inseminate many more women that women are able to have eggs to account for, but this both a necessary biological function (otherwise like Monty Python said every sperm would be sacred and male masturbation would be a sin), and it is the reason women like to call us dogs for looking at the waitress passing by, when we are basically biologically wired to be interested in spreading our seed. Men aren't "expendable" as you put it, just because we have the ability to reproduce more times doesn't mean that we aren't a valuable resource to the community. Women still produce plenty of eggs to still be able to copulate many times, if healthy. One of the reasons women are protected more is because they are the ones who birth the baby, and during their period of gestation they are very vulnerable and obviously need to be protected since they carry life within them.

 

The consequence of this then is that a woman can become a sexual selector, gravitating towards the dominant male as he represents the best genes available and his status represents the best possible future for her children. A man is a means to an end; the end is always the child.

For a man, this becomes a necessity to compete with other males and to prove his worth as fine genetic stock. Which leads to a more domineering and challenging nature requiring aggression, ingenuity, invention in order to succeed.

 

 

We (men and women) are BOTH just means to the same end, that end being a child. Women do have the selective power, true, but she still can't reproduce on her own. Also, the devolpment of ingenuity, invention, and some of the other traits you mentioned came much more from our need to survive harsh conditions early in our existence. The aggressive alpha male type partly evolved as a product of what you're talking about, but it was easily as much, if not more, due to simply trying to vie for leadership of whatever group you were in. The "alpha male" has been documented in many different species, even species with different methods of procreation, and funny thing is there are almost as many species that have alpha females as there are that have alpha males. This is what I meant when I said that article is oversimplifying the matter, it ignores many other factors in the development of both our sexual and social roles.

 

I am confused. Is it both "intellectual hyper philosophy" and overly simplistic? Because I find that an insightful idea stated simply is quite powerful.

 

 

Yes, it's both. It's a intellectual hyper philosophy because it was developed not so much through research as it was based on preconceived notions, which then took you a step away from objectivity and towards subjectivity. It was overly simplistic because it ignored many other factors which influence the issue at hand. And you're right, an insightful idea stated simply is quite powerful, that's how Hitler was able to take an insightful idea (that Jewish people were responsible for the German economic plight) and state it simply (ignoring all the many factors which actually influenced it, namely the Treaty of Versailles), and gain power in a remarkable fashion. I'm not trying to compare you or the author to Hitler, I'm simply using an extreme example of how you can have an insightful idea, state it simply, and look very intelligent, even if the idea is wrong.

 

 

The thing I disagree most with, is the general idea that women inherently want to mate and thus propogate the species, and in order to do so must conform to society's ideals to the point where no individuality exists

 

Well, since such an instinct would make reproduction more likely and therefore more likely for that instinct to be passed on.... I don't see the error here. Childless women won't pass on their individual peculiarities to another generation; that is if the peculiarities we are talking about are the product of genetics (nature) or an acquired behaviour (nurture). Either way they are squandering their genetic distinctiveness and will thereby be eliminated from the pool.

 

 

I never said childless women, I was talking about women who don't make it their intention to raise a family, this doesn't mean they never have kids. Alcohol is a hell of a drug, and it is responsible for more children on this planet than you can imagine. The more independant women I'm speaking of doesn't necessarily abhor sex, on the contrary many feminists and bold females find it to be a natural and zesty enterprise (kudos to any who get that reference ) and as we all know, life finds a way. Not only that, but it is also possible for childless women to impact society, and those around them, so just because they don't spawn doesn't mean they don't have a legacy.

 

Don't you suspect that in the female this necessity of reproduction would select for a particular mindset which would better fascilitate this? A more submissive attitude which would be receptive to the domineering, penetrative act of the male.... that would find it attractive? An attitude that searches for the most dominant, most worthy male to submit to, in order to produce the most successful offspring?

And couldn't this inclination in turn be redirected towards a social instinct (as most sexual instincts inevitably are) of submission to the most powerful contemporary ideology? And wouldn't a male's inherent inclination towards seeking dominance lead him to challenge what is powerful and either prove his worth or perish in the attempt?

 

AAAAHH!!!! Too many presuppositions! RUN!!! Lol jking. A woman will develop as she develops, in response to her genetic code, her environment, outside stimuli, conditioned behavior, etc. Needless to say, they will develop in a multitude of different ways, and many of them won't exhibit that submissive attitude you describe, especially in today's society. It doesn't mean their genetic strain will die out either. Men develop very similarly, and some will be very attracted to a more assertive female. To each their own, and social darwinism is essentially a myth because the minority still has all the tools they need to reproduce and survive. Your comment about social instincts derived from sexual instincts is, well, very Freudian. He thought pretty much every single one of our actions was motivated by sex, and he's been shown to be remarkably wrong. Our sexual nature does effect us in many ways, but as I said before mankind is a complex beast and we exhibit a large number of motivations and interests. Also, society is a construct, and as such, "social instincts" is a misnomer.

 

That last bit might have some truth in it, but once again that truth can be drawn by examining the huge array of factors which shape our individual personas and our collective societies, not by just looking at what we have between our legs.

 

Now think about how Moiraine dealt with Rand in Cairhien. She tried to overawe him with her Aes Sedai bullshit, but he fought against an authority figure as he saw her and pushed her away. So instead she submitted to him, humbled herself before him and through the growing pity her behaviour instilled in him eventually had him eating out of her hand.

 

So the point here is that submission as an aspect of feminity is not necessarily a lack of power, but is itself a worthwhile tactic employed by an entire gender entirely to their own benefit.

 

Why else do you think that a chivalric sentiment is so common?

 

That is a great example you brought up, but it actually works the other way. Would the common reader of this series, if confronted by a literary critic, attach the superlative "submissive" to the average Aes Sedai? Heck no they wouldn't! Although Aes Sedai have to "submit" to saidar to use it, this doesn't translate to their general behavior whatsoever. This is a seperate world (I think) in which men and women have different sociological roles, and if you look at every culture of Randland, the predominant submissive gender is obviously men. That's why when Moiraine does what she does, every female POV we see thinks it's absurd, and is completely caught off guard by it. It does work, but this either has more to do with the Manatheren blood in Rand which makes him very recalcitrant to Moiraine's previous handling of him, or RJ is showing an example of how our sociological roles can possibly change.

 

Submission has been a trait that for a time was common in women in our world but it was more of a reaction to the drastic rebalancing of power that was done as christianity started to rise. Free thinking women of that period were burned at the stake as witches; it became life-preserving to submit to male authority. Luckily, that has changed in the modern era, and we are seeing a shift in the roles in which men and women inhabit.

 

Chivalric sentiment is common because women must be protected as they are the childbearers, and because, I'm sorry feminists, they are the fairer sex. Sadly, as we see this paradigm shift I was talking about, chivalry is already becoming one of the casualties.

[EvilSocrates]

Hey Emu,

 

I almost always enjoy your posts. You clearly spend a lot more time writing them than most people (myself fully included) do, which makes them more lucid than most. Of course, I'm usually at least 3 glasses of scotch in by the time I post, so perhaps that gives me a handicap.

 

Anyhow, your point of view seems to reject evolutionary psychology. Is that a correct assumption on my part? I submit as the basis of that assumption your belief that the sexual dimorphism of humans is limited to things like muscle mass and menstruation, and not anything psychological. If you accept, rather than reject, that reproductive strategies and instincts color the behaviors of any given human, then there is more leeway for significant sex differences.

[Kahsm]

I still don't see how any of this has anything to do with the world RJ choses to create and how he choses to write his characters...

[EvilSocrates]

I still don't see how any of this has anything to do with the world RJ choses to create and how he choses to write his characters...

 

If he chooses to create characters in a way that is offensive, it can diminish the enjoyment of a book. It takes some readers out of the story when they note that Saldean women are forbidden to learn the sword, despite every incentive to do so, for example. Such a restriction could reflect parochial and sexist views of the world-builder, if there is no sensible "in world" explanation for it.

 

Moreover, to the extent RJ purports to portray offensive ideas as descriptively true or normatively preferable, it is a weakness in his writing. By way of illustration, if I wrote a fantasy novel wherein all the dark skinned characters were noticeably less intelligent than the light skinned characters, and set that book on planet Earth, I imagine my writing would be criticized on those grounds.

 

I think the sexism claim here is that RJ was attempting to write a book with sexist characters, but accidentally revealed himself to be sexist as well. Continuing my prior example, it would be as though I wrote a book where the black characters regarded the white characters as dangerous and therefore worthy of oppression, because of a past historical calamity, but I also wrote all black characters as consistently dumb and dishonest. I would then have revealed myself to be racist, even if my original intention was to expose racial oppression as unjust by reversing historical positions and having black men oppress white. Many seem to think RJ has done just that, because he is attempting to skewer gender oppression, but consistently writes his characters in accordance with old prejudices (men are aggressive and simple, women are shrewish, controlling, and manipulative).

 

Now, I'm not saying I agree with this view of WoT, but if it IS true, then it certainly "has something to do" with the world RJ "chooses to create." This is especially so because it purports to be Earth, and therefore reflect how men and women actually are in our world.

 

It is possible to disagree on at least 2 grounds, and thus defeat this criticism of Wheel of Time. 1: there is a plausible in world explanation for what might seem to be the author's prejudice. 2: women and men actually are different in ways described by the book, and so RJ isn't sexist, he simply writes truthfully. A combination of these views is also possible. Emu, and others, strongly reject the first option, presumably from the belief that men and women are essentially a-priori identical, except for some minor, and mostly irrelevant, physical differences relating to reproduction and muscle density. Others think the differences are broader.