Egwene Appreciation Thread

[b3arz3rg3r]

Yeah they are both called Dreadlords.

 

Ahh yeah right, that's what they were called. Dreadladies XD

 

The books seem to disagree with your assessment, because after the initial reaction of fear the Asha'man were accepted rather quickly by most they come into contact with.

 

The book disagrees with me? How about what Rand thinks...

 

 

Not much different from what his own people did in gentling men, truth be told. “Saidin is cleansed now,” he said to her. “This practice must stop.”

She pursed her lips, regarding him. “Your . . . man spoke of this, Coramoor. Some find it difficult to accept.”

“It is true,” he said firmly.

“I do not doubt that you believe it to be so.”

Rand gritted his teeth, forcing down another burst of anger, his hand forming a fist. He had cleansed the taint! He, Rand al'Thor, had performed a deed the likes of which had not been seen since the Age of Legends. And how was it treated? With suspicion and doubt. Most assumed that he was going mad, and therefore seeing a "cleansing" that had not really happened.

Men who could channel were always distrusted. Yet they were the only ones who could confirm what Rand said! He'd imagined joy and wonder at the victory, but he should have known better. Though male Aes Sedai had once been as respected as their female counterparts, that had been long ago. The days of Jorlen Corbesan had been lost in time. All people could remember now was the Breaking and the Madness.

They hated male channelers.

 

The taint being clean will not be accepted overnight and if(not saying it will happen) Taim and the BT cronies commits major atrocities they will not differentiate.

 

You do realize that you're quoting Rand when he was already heavily influenced by the DO? While not on TGS level Rand wasn't really balanced even back then. He was full of anger and had trouble keeping a reign on his temper. That Rand was not an objective judge. That much is blatantly obvious.

 

Besides, the Seafolk reaction was the initial reaction of fear I spoke of. Once they have prolonged contact with male channellers the opinion will change. Just look at Perrin's army, Ituralde, Bashere, the bonded Aes Sedai, Cadsuane's circle. They may not love the Asha'man- except for Merise, Corele and Logain's girlfriend-, but they accept them and there's more than a modicum of trust between them already and it took only weeks or a few months to come this far. So yes, I'd say the books disagrees with you.

[Edynol]

But that was just Rand's thoughts. And we have seen plenty of people, Rand included, be wrong about a lot of things. Also remember how Rand was at that point in time, he wasn't exactly Mr. Posativity. Remember there are a lot of well renown generals and veterans and such who have fought along side Rand's Asha'man and their words will carry a lot of weight with the majority of the people. Also give the people some credit, by now, most know there are good and bad people of sorts, rather they are Aes Sedai, Asha'man, or your average Joe Randlander.Not saying everyone is so openminded, but to think the whole population is so narrowminded seems a bit short-sighted IMO. I think at worst, things will go back to as they were except people won't differentiate between male and famle channelers, but just channelers as a whole.

 

Sure we will still have people like the Coplands, but we will also have people who who like them wholeheartedly to balance them out. Like I said, I see channelers in generals, male and female, being equal after TG.

[Suttree]

I'm not arguing that bonded AS and some of the people working day to day with the Ashaman won't come around. We see how long it took even them however and that is far from the reality of Joe Randlander. Most have no idea the taint is even clean and will be hearing about these things second hand. Don't fall into the trap of thinking they know everything we do. It will take a significant amount of time to overcome that fear and distrust. Male channeled are a small step below forsaken in the minds of these people. You are kidding yourself if you think that changes over a few months. Rand has the right of it. That's just the reality of the situation.

[Edynol]

Not really. You also forget how most people are quick to forgive past wrong doings when the 'bad guy' joins the good guys. When the see or hear about male channelers rising to help defeat the Dark One, most of their opinions will change almost instantly. Look at how Cairhien accepted the Aiel, some even emulating them, only 20 years after the Aiel War.

 

And yes, a lot of people will be hearing stuff 2nd hahnd, but you forget that a lot of people will take rumor as fact and spread it around as such. I'm not saying it'll happen overnight, but it won't take nearly as long as you think it will. Also remember that huge disasters, like the impending doom of the world, have a way bringing people together and them forgetting the past. "Sure, men broke the world, but they didn't destroy it. They came and helped save it from destruction. Maybe they're not so bad after all." The majority of people do actually think that way. I'd say with in a year following TG Male channelers will no feared than female ones. Especially with the Seanchan using female channeler to attack and conquer nations.

[Maleshub]

Whoa. Whoa. WHOA! How can Rand, or the BT be to BLAME for bonding AS? If anything, they should be thanked that they didn't just kill all the Aes Sedai that came to murder them all. Come on now. Bonding in self defense vs killing them as they had every right too.

 

It's another example of what's wrong with Eggy. AS went to murder dozens of men, and they captured them instead, and she blames the men. BS.

 

Where did you get the idea that Rand was to be "blamed" for it? The previous quotes differentiate between responsibility for an action (good or bad action) and blame. No one is blaming Rand for the bonded Aes Sedai; it is just that he has taken responsibility for this action; and we know that he shoulders the ultimate responsibility for the actions of his men.

[Suttree]

. Especially with the Seanchan using female channeler to attack and conquer nations.

 

Do you really think that vision is going to come to pass?

[Edynol]

Do you really think it isn't?

[RandA lThor]

Suttree kind of has a point. I think with giving this vision, it is too easy for it to pass. I'm pretty sure RJ would have made sure that something wouldn't be directly foretold like this. Also, I think Aviendha would do anything to stop this, including committing suicide. not that i want her to, i'm just saying she would.

[Edynol]

Oh I think I misread Suttree there, my bad. Wasn't talking about Avi's vision, thought she was talking about my vision of things. lol. No, I don't think THAT vision will come to pass. I was talking about the nations the Seanchan have already conquered. Sorry for the misconception.

 

Edit: I can't use words anymore! Gah!

[Thrasymachus]

XXX, your understanding of human history is about as accurate as your interpretation of the books, which is to say, not at all. Male-dominated social hierarchies are an incredibly recent development. For most of human history, the evidence suggest that we lived in small nomadic family-based societies led by the women, not the men. Modern studies of "primitive" cultures substantiates this. Perhaps the best example is the Iroquois Nation, the loose confederation of Native American tribes that lived in the East Coast. I'll give you the quote from Wiki, but you can find the same evidence elsewhere, if you desire.

 

women held property and hereditary leadership passed through their lines. They held dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband. They had separate roles but real power in the nations. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. At marriage, a young couple lived in the longhouse of the wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling and take his possessions with him.^[36] The children of the marriage belonged to their mother's clan and gained their social status through hers. Her brothers were important teachers and mentors to the children, especially introducing boys to men's roles and societies. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children.^[37] The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.^[37]

Emphasis mine

 

Similar matriarchal systems are much more common in pre- or proto-agricultural societies than patriarchies. Only when a society becomes fully agricultural, and the defense of productive land or the conquest of other's land becomes the dominant social concern do patriarchies dominate over matriarchies, and then usually only to the extent that said society is militarized. And there's some very simple reasons for this. Women are just as socially competent as men (possibly more) and just as intelligent. The difference between a young healthy male's physical prowess is not much greater than a young, healthy female's, and the fragility of both is sufficient to counter what difference does exist. And women live longer than men, so they get to be the elders of a society and the repository of social wisdom to be passed down much more often than men do.

 

What's sexist about your take on the female-dominated cultures of Randland is your notion that such dominance is not normal or natural. First of all, the term "natural" has no meaning when applied to human society. Any society humans form is "natural" insofar as it is an expression of the "natures" of the individuals in it, and it is contrived and artificial insofar as it is created and maintained by the work and planning of human beings. Second, you're just wrong in thinking that matriarchal societies are somehow not normal or worse than patriarchies.

[fionwe1987]

XXX, your understanding of human history is about as accurate as your interpretation of the books, which is to say, not at all. Male-dominated social hierarchies are an incredibly recent development. For most of human history, the evidence suggest that we lived in small nomadic family-based societies led by the women, not the men. Modern studies of "primitive" cultures substantiates this. Perhaps the best example is the Iroquois Nation, the loose confederation of Native American tribes that lived in the East Coast. I'll give you the quote from Wiki, but you can find the same evidence elsewhere, if you desire.

 

women held property and hereditary leadership passed through their lines. They held dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband. They had separate roles but real power in the nations. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. At marriage, a young couple lived in the longhouse of the wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling and take his possessions with him.^[36] The children of the marriage belonged to their mother's clan and gained their social status through hers. Her brothers were important teachers and mentors to the children, especially introducing boys to men's roles and societies. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children.^[37] The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.^[37]

Emphasis mine

 

Similar matriarchal systems are much more common in pre- or proto-agricultural societies than patriarchies. Only when a society becomes fully agricultural, and the defense of productive land or the conquest of other's land becomes the dominant social concern do patriarchies dominate over matriarchies, and then usually only to the extent that said society is militarized. And there's some very simple reasons for this. Women are just as socially competent as men (possibly more) and just as intelligent. The difference between a young healthy male's physical prowess is not much greater than a young, healthy female's, and the fragility of both is sufficient to counter what difference does exist. And women live longer than men, so they get to be the elders of a society and the repository of social wisdom to be passed down much more often than men do.

 

What's sexist about your take on the female-dominated cultures of Randland is your notion that such dominance is not normal or natural. First of all, the term "natural" has no meaning when applied to human society. Any society humans form is "natural" insofar as it is an expression of the "natures" of the individuals in it, and it is contrived and artificial insofar as it is created and maintained by the work and planning of human beings. Second, you're just wrong in thinking that matriarchal societies are somehow not normal or worse than patriarchies.

 

Thanks for that. I was seriously considering whether I should reply in detail to XXX, but I was getting entirely too pissed off at some of the claimes being made. As you point out very well, the end result of one gender dominating the other doesn't come about simply, fluctuates over the generations, and has very complex socio-economic factors shaping it. IT never has been about "men strong, women weak, we rule!"

 

More later.

[Suttree]

XXX, your understanding of human history is about as accurate as your interpretation of the books, which is to say, not at all.

 

This really shouldn't suprise anyone...

[SuperFade]

XXX, your understanding of human history is about as accurate as your interpretation of the books, which is to say, not at all. Male-dominated social hierarchies are an incredibly recent development. For most of human history, the evidence suggest that we lived in small nomadic family-based societies led by the women, not the men. Modern studies of "primitive" cultures substantiates this. Perhaps the best example is the Iroquois Nation, the loose confederation of Native American tribes that lived in the East Coast. I'll give you the quote from Wiki, but you can find the same evidence elsewhere, if you desire.

 

women held property and hereditary leadership passed through their lines. They held dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband. They had separate roles but real power in the nations. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. At marriage, a young couple lived in the longhouse of the wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling and take his possessions with him.^[36] The children of the marriage belonged to their mother's clan and gained their social status through hers. Her brothers were important teachers and mentors to the children, especially introducing boys to men's roles and societies. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children.^[37] The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.^[37]

Emphasis mine

 

Similar matriarchal systems are much more common in pre- or proto-agricultural societies than patriarchies. Only when a society becomes fully agricultural, and the defense of productive land or the conquest of other's land becomes the dominant social concern do patriarchies dominate over matriarchies, and then usually only to the extent that said society is militarized. And there's some very simple reasons for this. Women are just as socially competent as men (possibly more) and just as intelligent. The difference between a young healthy male's physical prowess is not much greater than a young, healthy female's, and the fragility of both is sufficient to counter what difference does exist. And women live longer than men, so they get to be the elders of a society and the repository of social wisdom to be passed down much more often than men do.

 

Having done some cursory reading of the Wikipedia article, I find that the earliest ancestors of the Iroquois first appeared around the year 1000 AD. That's the medieval period and the middle of the middle ages - hardly ancient by any means. If you want a truly ancient example of a matrilineal society the only one that immediately springs to mind is the Lenape, who existed since 10,000BC.

 

Oddly enough, according to Wikipedia, the view that most ancient societies were matriarchal is actually a discredited one, and that societies like the Iroquois were actually the exception rather than the rule:

 

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} but possible exceptions include the Iroquois, in whose society mothers exercise central moral and political roles.^[7] However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered scieties are - apparently without exception - egalitarian.^[8][9]

There are also matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa,^[10] such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers and Tuareg and, in Europe, e.g., Sardinian people.^[11][12]

Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant.

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed.^[13]

 

In any case, this discussion is getting dangerously close to a derail.

[David Selig]

What do Aes Sedai have to do with the fact that basically every man in Randland is deadly afraid of women glares and would do anything a bossy woman tells him in a stern voice? Look at Two Rivers - before Moiraine, an Aes Sedai hasn't been there for centuries, they even consider Aes Sedai Darkfriends, yet The Wisdom has always been the most powerful person in the village and is allowed to beat up the men as she pleases.

 

It's not like the Aes Sedai try to enforce female dominance on a micro level or even gender equality equality. They only care about the Tower's dominance. They don't give a damn if there is a King or a Queen in charge of a country as long as they are following their "advice". They don't go around looking to punish for men mistreating women.

 

I think the presence of apparently wildly available and 100% reliable contraceptive in Randland is more important for the balance of power between genders than the Aes Sedai.

[baalsmistress]

The wisdom is probably a poor choice since most of the Two Rivers wisdom's we know of have been channellers (albeit unknowing). The Women's circle otoh exercised their dominance in their areas of responsibility with entirely mundane tactics. It should be mentioned, that the reason the Two Rivers worked so well inn my opinion, is that the village council, and the women's circle both had their separate areas of responsibility, with the only real tension being which camp particular issues lie (the general solution being both decide to guide the other group into an acceptable resolution). Of course, The Two Rivers is a place where the environment has been an adversary much of the time, and they are used to working together as a group for their common survival.

[b3arz3rg3r]

I'm not arguing that bonded AS and some of the people working day to day with the Ashaman won't come around. We see how long it took even them however and that is far from the reality of Joe Randlander. Most have no idea the taint is even clean and will be hearing about these things second hand. Don't fall into the trap of thinking they know everything we do. It will take a significant amount of time to overcome that fear and distrust. Male channeled are a small step below forsaken in the minds of these people. You are kidding yourself if you think that changes over a few months. Rand has the right of it. That's just the reality of the situation.

 

I'm not kidding myself, you just don't understand what I've been saying.

Right now most of the people in the world barely know that the Asha'man exist. For them male channelers may still be one step below the Forsaken, but that's going to change rather quickly and we've seen the evidence of it in all those examples I made and which you thoughtlessly dismiss as exceptions.Those examples however prove how quickly people are willing to change their minds on the matter of male channelers. If even bigoted people like Red Ajah and Whitecloaks can accept male channelers- and in short order at that- why do you think Joe Randlander would be any different?

 

The survivors of TG will carry tales of the deeds of the Asha'man who fought by their sides to the entire world. Those are the tales Joe Randlander will hear and if the aggressive recruiting of male channellers continues many will get to know Asha'man as they visit their towns and villages and many will also know male channelers who lived among them.

 

What do Aes Sedai have to do with the fact that basically every man in Randland is deadly afraid of women glares and would do anything a bossy woman tells him in a stern voice? Look at Two Rivers - before Moiraine, an Aes Sedai hasn't been there for centuries, they even consider Aes Sedai Darkfriends, yet The Wisdom has always been the most powerful person in the village and is allowed to beat up the men as she pleases.

 

The Wisdoms don't beat up grown men, not even Nyneave did that. She may have hit some with her stick, but her stick was more a tool of intimidation than anything else. And it's not as if the position of Wisdom was inherently more powerful than the one of mayor. It depends on their personalities who is really in charge. And since the mayors are elected, they are usually the ones most liked and trusted and not necessarily the ones with the strongest personality whereas the Wisdoms are chosen and trained to become strong opinionated women. So the Wisdoms may often have an edge in debates.

[Barid Bel Medar]

INTERVIEW: Oct 6th, 2005

Robert Jordan's Blog: AND ONE MORE TIME

 

 

ROBERT JORDAN

For Anonymous-George, long ago I saw one of the first, I believe, novels about a young woman who wasn't allowed to use magic or whatever because she was a woman, and the thought occurred to me as to how it might go if men were the ones who were denied the right to do magic. Or whatever. I hate using the word magic. From that long ago thought grew the One Power divided into saidin and saidar with the male half tainted and the reasons for and results of it being tainted. Now in most of these societies—Far Madding is the obvious exception—I did not and do not view them as matriarchal. I attempted to design societies that were as near gender balanced as to rights, responsibilities and power as I could manage. It doesn't all work perfectly. People have bellybuttons. If you want to see someone who always behaves logically, never tells small lies or conceals the truth in order to put the best face for themselves on events, and never, ever tries to take advantage of any situation whatsoever, then look for somebody without a bellybutton. The real surprise to me was that while I was designing these gender balanced societies, people were seeing matriarchies.

[XXX]

XXX, your understanding of human history is about as accurate as your interpretation of the books, which is to say, not at all. Male-dominated social hierarchies are an incredibly recent development. For most of human history, the evidence suggest that we lived in small nomadic family-based societies led by the women, not the men. Modern studies of "primitive" cultures substantiates this. Perhaps the best example is the Iroquois Nation, the loose confederation of Native American tribes that lived in the East Coast. I'll give you the quote from Wiki, but you can find the same evidence elsewhere, if you desire.

 

women held property and hereditary leadership passed through their lines. They held dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband. They had separate roles but real power in the nations. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. At marriage, a young couple lived in the longhouse of the wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling and take his possessions with him.^[36] The children of the marriage belonged to their mother's clan and gained their social status through hers. Her brothers were important teachers and mentors to the children, especially introducing boys to men's roles and societies. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children.^[37] The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.^[37]

Emphasis mine

 

Similar matriarchal systems are much more common in pre- or proto-agricultural societies than patriarchies. Only when a society becomes fully agricultural, and the defense of productive land or the conquest of other's land becomes the dominant social concern do patriarchies dominate over matriarchies, and then usually only to the extent that said society is militarized. And there's some very simple reasons for this. Women are just as socially competent as men (possibly more) and just as intelligent. The difference between a young healthy male's physical prowess is not much greater than a young, healthy female's, and the fragility of both is sufficient to counter what difference does exist. And women live longer than men, so they get to be the elders of a society and the repository of social wisdom to be passed down much more often than men do.

 

What's sexist about your take on the female-dominated cultures of Randland is your notion that such dominance is not normal or natural. First of all, the term "natural" has no meaning when applied to human society. Any society humans form is "natural" insofar as it is an expression of the "natures" of the individuals in it, and it is contrived and artificial insofar as it is created and maintained by the work and planning of human beings. Second, you're just wrong in thinking that matriarchal societies are somehow not normal or worse than patriarchies.

 

You are completely wrong. There are relatively very few matriarchal societies which existed and even fewer survived to the last hundred years. You have given one example from the Native Indians from the past the best known. I believe there are only a few of tribes in Africa and one in India which till recently kept the matriarchal system atleast till the last hundred years. The nos are not even close the no of societies led by males throughout human history.

 

The strength difference between the average female and the average male is not much? Wow, just wow.

From wiki

 

 

gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.^[7] This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body.^[8] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.^[9]

 

 

 

BTW Randland is defined by RJ as a 17th century medieval age. In the 17th century the vast majority of rulers were male.In an age of war physical strength counts.

[Suttree]

For them male channelers may still be one step below the Forsaken, but that's going to change rather quickly and we've seen the evidence of it in all those examples I made and which you thoughtlessly dismiss as exceptions.

 

But that is the point, they are exceptions. How many people will actually work first hand with them like the examples you give? You yourself claim most of the world will hear second hand. I have presented textual evidence backing up my claim. If anyone is dismissing something it's you ignoring quotes(which is not the only examples of people not believing the taint is clean btw). 3,000 years of fear and prejudice does not disapear as fast as you think. That will only be exasperated if Taim and his cronies commit some sort of huge atrocities during TG. Either way it's clear neither of us is going to budge. No worries, two different interpretations is all. I enjoyed the discussion.

[Thrasymachus]

50% greater strength is not much when base strength is not much. If your average, healthy human female can lift 100 lbs above her head, your average, healthy human male will be able to lift 150 lbs. That's a 50 lb difference. Woo hoo. A woman with a spear is just as deadly as a man with one.

 

And you can put me in the camp of those that believe the dismissal of early matriarchies in human societies is a result of Western bias. Just look at the number of distinctions and qualifications made for matriarchal societies: Matrilinear, matrilocal, avunculocal, matrifocal, yadda yadda yadda. The point of those distinctions is to undermine the significance of societies where women were the social equals or betters of men. And my point remains that societies where men are the social betters of women are a relatively recent innovation of humanity that comes about when war becomes the dominant social concern and the small absolute differences between the physical prowess of men and women begin to matter more. Societies where men are the social betters of women are not better or more "natural" than societies where men and women are equal or women are the social betters than men. To argue that a 17th century level of tech will naturally have a male-dominated society because 17th century Europe was male-dominated is to completely ignore the patriarchal history of Europe. 17th century Europe was male dominated because their cultural fore-bears, the Romans and Greeks, going back about 3 thousand years were male dominated. The Celts and Germans they supplanted were far more egalitarian in their social structures, to the point that issues of heredity and social sub-group inclusion were determined matrilinearly. But modern humans have been running around the planet for the last million years or so. Even if we stretch male dominance of society back to the very beginnings of settled civilization, about 10,000 years ago, which is dubious as the oldest civilizations such as ancient Egypt and the Mesopotamian civilizations were predominantly matrilinear, where females had property rights that equaled or bettered men's and rulers were often queens, that's only about 1% of the time we've been kicking around. Prior to that, we were semi-migratory family tribes of hunter-gatherers. Such tribes are nearly universally ruled by their elders, and those elders are almost always predominantly women.

 

Finally, arguing that male-dominance of society is "natural" or "right" is sexist, because when it comes to human societies, there is no such thing. All human societies are a product of their history and their environments, and as such, they are all natural. Male dominance in society is selected for when certain environmental conditions exist, and it persists in a society where those conditions no longer exist due to the history of male dominance in that society. Female dominance in society is selected for when other environmental conditions exist, and persist in a a society due to the history of female dominance in that society. Egalitarian societies occur in environments where there is no selection pressure for male or female dominance, or where those selection pressures cancel each other out, and there is no history of either male or female dominance, or that history can be overcome. History is not enough to justify a particular social order, only explain it. The comparative advantage of a social order is the only thing that can justify it, and male dominance of the social order only has a comparative advantage to egalitarian or female-dominated societies when war is an ongoing environmental concern.

[fionwe1987]

I'm very sure the good Asha'man will be accepted as part of soceity, but as Aes Sedai. The only way the world will beleive the Cleansing is if the Aes Sedai claim it. They're the only people who can verify it. And the Rebel Hall has already recieved such evidence, and the Amyrlin Seat accepts that Saidin is cleansed, and that an Aes Sedai helped cleansed it.

 

I'm fairly sure Egwene will send a proclamation that Saidin was cleansed by the Dragon Reborn, with the aid of Aes Sedai (amazing PR potential there, though I doubt that will be the motive). Once that goes out, people can grumble, but those in the know, those who know an Aes Sedai cannot lie in a direct statement, will have no choice but to beleive that saidin is clean.

 

That will set the stage for the "Guardians to balance the Servants".

[Elan Tedronai]

my the debate took a whole new turn. XXX47, don't confuse the books with real life. The women who channel the power outnumber the men by vast majority in WOT. They possess enumerous count of power based objects. The only way the balance can turn the other way is saidar based tainiting by shaitan. That aint going to happen.

 

The wheel itself will guarantee parity between both sexes.

 

 

 

Egwene deserves props for being advance as a modern Aes Sedai.

 

However, there are flaws with her. She acts like a child a lot. The dominance games with Nye drive me nuts. Her idea of how the White Tower should be and not what it needs to be drive me nuts as well.

 

The fact that she knows Rand is the Dragon Reborn, knows that he needs to fight the Dark One, knows that he needs to seal the Dark One back up in his prison, should back him because he is from the Two Rivers, all these things she knows about. But what does she want to do? She wants to force Rand to do what she thinks is right by the White Tower. Going behind his back to enlist all the leaders of the world to stand with the White Tower. And by the way some of these people are of questionable standing. Which everyone knows except for her and her locked up sisters.

 

Honestly she is talented but a pain in my butt. I dread the pages that deal with her. Usually can't wait until the story moves on to someone else. Problem is it usually goes to Avienda where she is owing Toh to someone somewhere.

 

 

Nynaeve had to be slapped down. She wasnt listening to her superior.

 

Egwene's idea of a white tower means women should start accepting male channellers. Accept the fact female aes sedai do not have monopoly over objects of power. Red ajah needs a new purpose. Reach out to rival channellers like wiseones and sea folks. Pretty better than elaida's version no?Nothing major.

 

Sometimes i question whether half the people on this board ever read the books.

 

BTW Rand al thor is not some deity with perfectionism hemmed in. Couple of books ago he was ready to blow up everything with the kal.

 

He fucked up the black tower. How can someone be so stupid and so careless as to hand over the most deadly force into the hands of someone as shady as taim? How come the shepherder didnt even bother to investigate when taim's men tried to kill him in book 8? Or even when logainj is practically screaming at him at the sheninigans going on?

 

I mean it's easy to have a go at egwene but before you can do good to others it's better to clean your own house first. Egwene did that twice. Once in her own backyard and the other in the tower.

 

Action speaks louder than words. It's going to take more than burning a few trollocs at maradon to lead and inspire people.

 

He need not worry about the black tower anymore though. Pevara is going to save the day. She will do what rand al thor failed to do since book 8 and clean his own mess.

[Elan Tedronai]

What I was saying basically was that Egwene started thinking of Rand as the Dragon Reborn and another piece in a game instead of someone who used to be her friend and needs her to cooperate with him.

 

 

LMAO it gets better around here.

 

You know something when my friends want something from me they usually have the decency to not only explain why they need it but also state their reasons in a gentle fashion.

 

Did rand treat egwene as a friend when he gatecrashed her tower and basically told her he was gong to break the seals without any co-operation from her and practically threw her offer of planning in her face? And yet you have the audacity to wonder why that would put egwnene's back up?

 

 

I mean would you consider such a person a friend in the first place?

[RandA lThor]

Gatecrashed her tower? He asked to see the Amyrlin and was shielded and under an armed escort. How is that gatecrashing? Anyone has the right to ask to see the Amyrlin. State their reasons in a gentle fashion. Did Egwene explain to Rand where Salidar was? She didn't explain to him what was happening to the Tower. She didn't even explain to him why Moiraine told her to do things in the beginning of the books. Yeah, that would put Egwene's back up, but considering that she has been doing that for a way longer time, and Rand asked to see her, and that Rand couldn't tell her because the plan was made so that she couldn't be told.

[XXX]

50% greater strength is not much when base strength is not much. If your average, healthy human female can lift 100 lbs above her head, your average, healthy human male will be able to lift 150 lbs. That's a 50 lb difference. Woo hoo. A woman with a spear is just as deadly as a man with one.

 

And you can put me in the camp of those that believe the dismissal of early matriarchies in human societies is a result of Western bias. Just look at the number of distinctions and qualifications made for matriarchal societies: Matrilinear, matrilocal, avunculocal, matrifocal, yadda yadda yadda. The point of those distinctions is to undermine the significance of societies where women were the social equals or betters of men. And my point remains that societies where men are the social betters of women are a relatively recent innovation of humanity that comes about when war becomes the dominant social concern and the small absolute differences between the physical prowess of men and women begin to matter more. Societies where men are the social betters of women are not better or more "natural" than societies where men and women are equal or women are the social betters than men. To argue that a 17th century level of tech will naturally have a male-dominated society because 17th century Europe was male-dominated is to completely ignore the patriarchal history of Europe. 17th century Europe was male dominated because their cultural fore-bears, the Romans and Greeks, going back about 3 thousand years were male dominated. The Celts and Germans they supplanted were far more egalitarian in their social structures, to the point that issues of heredity and social sub-group inclusion were determined matrilinearly. But modern humans have been running around the planet for the last million years or so. Even if we stretch male dominance of society back to the very beginnings of settled civilization, about 10,000 years ago, which is dubious as the oldest civilizations such as ancient Egypt and the Mesopotamian civilizations were predominantly matrilinear, where females had property rights that equaled or bettered men's and rulers were often queens, that's only about 1% of the time we've been kicking around. Prior to that, we were semi-migratory family tribes of hunter-gatherers. Such tribes are nearly universally ruled by their elders, and those elders are almost always predominantly women.

 

Finally, arguing that male-dominance of society is "natural" or "right" is sexist, because when it comes to human societies, there is no such thing. All human societies are a product of their history and their environments, and as such, they are all natural. Male dominance in society is selected for when certain environmental conditions exist, and it persists in a society where those conditions no longer exist due to the history of male dominance in that society. Female dominance in society is selected for when other environmental conditions exist, and persist in a a society due to the history of female dominance in that society. Egalitarian societies occur in environments where there is no selection pressure for male or female dominance, or where those selection pressures cancel each other out, and there is no history of either male or female dominance, or that history can be overcome. History is not enough to justify a particular social order, only explain it. The comparative advantage of a social order is the only thing that can justify it, and male dominance of the social order only has a comparative advantage to egalitarian or female-dominated societies when war is an ongoing environmental concern.

 

Ancient Egypt had female rulers but the vast majority were male rulers. Not sure how that supports your point. When there are 50 percent female rulers or better you can call it a matriarchal led culture. Early hunter gathers were female led societies..really?

 

With a spear an average woman is not the equal of an average man both with equal skill but has some chance. With a gun it becomes equal between them. With bare hands the average man will most likely than not pummel the average woman. You just proved my point. When technology develops to a point when the physical strength does not matter, gender disparities start disappearing.

 

It is not just 17th century Europe. Look at 17th century Asia and the great empires there. How many led by women?

 

In nature among mammals even leaving out humans the physically superior gender has generally dominated be it felines or even our closest neighbors the great apes. No amount of feminist propaganda changes that.

 

And Randland is an environment where war is an ongoing concern which means naturally it should be male dominated.