It is at least a little ironic that gender and sexuality inform some of the most important criticism of WoT, because in so many ways, RJ made great leaps along those lines in comparison to the fantasy authors that came before him, and in comparison to others of his generation. The very nature of the WoT world theoretically requires that RJ take an approach to gender roles and relationships that is more or less egalitarian, or even biased more toward females than toward males.
But in my experience, the most common criticism of WoT across the board - aside from the drag in the mid-late books - has to do with RJ's treatment of gender and sexuality. These criticisms are not entirely fabricated by people who don't like WoT because what happens in practice in WoT is often quite different from what we should theoretically expect. I have spent a good deal of time hanging out on WoT forums over the years, and I've also spent a good bit of time at Malazan Empire, and I've tried to keep up with the WoT threads at Westeros too, though I rarely post at the latter. Those two forums tend more to criticism of WoT than love for it, and I've also found much the same at other forums I've browsed, but those arguments are far from absent at WoT forums. You will even hear them from HCFFs like me from time to time. Why is that?
You can easily find similar criticisms from bloggers and journalists who are more respected in the WoT fandom than I am, such as Abby Goldsmith and Leigh Butler (ask around for one of the infamous pillow friend debates at her tor.com reread). These guys are big fans of WoT, and big fans of RJ, but they still feel the need to criticize. Why is that, do you think? I mean, can't we just shut up about it? RJ was inclusive of homosexuality, wasn't he? He was better at creating strong women than anyone in epic fantasy before him, wasn't he? Leigh in particular is often criticized by her readers for bringing up the subject so often, especially the pillow friends business. Why would she do that? Isn't once enough to make the point?
I can only speak for myself, but as someone who loves WoT more than most people, I of course agree with at least some of Brandon's reasoning here:
Brandon
Man, people sure are quick to accuse RJ of sexism on my twitter feed & facebook. I think any who do this are blatantly wrong.
Brandon
It's okay to not like the books, or to think RJ did a bad job w/characterizations. I disagree, but everyone's tastes are different.
Brandon
But he took great pains to create many strong female protagonists with a variety of strengths, and gave them their own stories.
Brandon
Yes, there are (More than a few) sexist people in the wot. And the culture has been influenced by the male/female interactions of the power.
Brandon
However, if you look at the time devoted to female viewpoints--and the plots of those characters--the "RJ is sexist" theory erodes.
Brandon
As a nod to those who truly know feminist literary theory, I'll make a less "Twitter friendly" argument. Robert Jordan, by creating a world where the women and men are very aware of gender roles, spent a lot of time delving into these topics. I'm convinced he was aware of male privilege, and though biased--as all of us are--sought very hard to overcome his own biases by creating evocative female characters with plot lines that do not center around the obtaining of favor or romantic interest from male characters. He also sought to create a world where women were not defined by how they were viewed by men, but were instead defined by their intelligence, determination, and accomplishments. In this way, though he exposes some small masculine biases in various areas, he was extremely progressive as a dominant male writer of his era, and should be regarded as anything other than "sexist" for his efforts. /Scholarly Brandon
I've seen much the same from him before. I understand that it is his job now to defend RJ's legacy - he has said as much in the past - and I also understand that he might have even been inclined to give the same defense even if it were not his job to do so. But I do think that the issue of sexism in WoT needs to be addressed, and I believe it needs to be addressed on a regular basis, despite the fact that because most people's opinions won't change right now. It needs to be addressed because to ignore the subject is passive acceptance of it, and in order for these biased cultural norms to actually change, we have to reject them, even if we respect the source. Why? Because this is not about RJ - who is, after all, one of my heroes (along with Bach and Chopin) - but about the world in which we live.
On searching for some links, I noticed that someone else already blogged on this subject. For the record, I disagree that WoT was not progressive in this area. It certainly was, especially in the context of blockbusters in the genre and RJ's generation. Extremely progressive. As an advocate against sexual repression, I find that there is a lot to like in WoT. But it cannot be denied that all of RJ's steps in the direction of sexual freedom for women are filtered through the eyes of his generation, despite the fact that he was ahead of his peers, and they are filtered through the preferences of a heterosexual male. The result of that is sexism, plain and simple.
I agree with Brandon that RJ does not really deserve to be remembered as a sexist. Some might also say that Martin Luther doesn't deserve to be remembered as an antisemite... (Did I just Godwin this post? If so, I'll preempt it with a warning to take it with a grain of salt.) ...and that's true too, in his cultural context. Even my hero Chopin was guilty of antisemitism (not completely sure about Bach, but I would be rather surprised and delighted if his hands were clean). But most fortunately, Martin Luther and Bach and Chopin mostly remembered for their accomplishments, despite the fact that most scholars recognize that Luther in particular (since we are all probably familiar with those writings) was indeed rather racist, from an objective perspective. It is important to recognize this fact because it is important to recognize, from a progressive perspective, that Luther's opinions were wrong.
The sexual freedom of the women might not be so important if WoT weren't so sexually charged - and despite its mostly safe-for-children approach to sexuality (mostly via means of aiming over their heads), WoT is rather sexually charged. I love RJ, and I will always be one of his biggest fans, but just because RJ passed the Bechdel Test with flying colors does not mean that these wrongs should not be addressed. As for my various readings of the common criticisms, I find that at non-WoT forums, it is more common to find a general criticism of RJ's ability to create female characters who are both likeable and believable, but at WoT forums, I find that the frustration at this fact is vented on the female characters themselves, as if they were real people...and I have to wonder if that is a particularly healthy way to go about it. It's not even close to a small problem at WoT forums - it's pervasive.
Like Luther, I hope that RJ will be remembered mostly for his accomplishments, but I also hope that the sexism in WoT will one day be as widely-recognized as the racism in Luther's writing (though these wrongs are not precisely comparable - keep the grain of salt in mind). When that happens, then it probably won't be necessary for people like me to harp on the subject again and again, but so long as there is such a fierce defensive reaction every time the subject is raised, then it will be necessary to keep bringing it up. Why? To quote Oscar Wilde: 'Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.'
I love RJ, and I love WoT - again, more than most - but I want the world to change.
/Scholarly Terez
PS - For those who were reading my blog, I'm sorry about taking off. My life has been a trainwreck lately (which is, of course, all my fault). I will be back, and I'm not precisely going anywhere anyway. :)
Update (March 12 10:58 pm):
I can see where you're coming from, but I still think almost everything (including the things in Abby's essay, which I've read) are more importantly aligned with Robert Jordan trying to create a realistic world where the One Power's gender imbalance has affected things, mixed with his attempts to create cultures with Earth parallels somewhere in the mid 1800's. Simply put, if there WEREN'T some of these gender imbalances in cultures, the books wouldn't feel realistic. Once we remove that, we're left with a few of the smaller things--the spanking issue, the issue of female nudity, treatments of homosexuality, and the narrative's fondness for noticing female anatomy. Much smaller issues, I believe, though still there. (I think the female nudity, by the way, is RJ trying to approach some of the concepts of the 'sacred feminine' as you see in feminist writings by people like Plath and Sexton--in which female nudity and menstruation are often associated with ritual and power.)
I didn't read all of the conversations you had about it on Twitter and Facebook, and I didn't really have gender roles in mind so much as other things. I understand what you're saying about how his world requires certain gender imbalances - I addressed that sort of offhandedly in my post by saying that the 'in practice' roles in WoT are often not what you would theoretically expect considering the circumstances. And while RJ often made comparisons to various time periods in the real world in reference to technology in particular, I'm not talking about that - I'm talking about the theoretical result of the history of the WoT world. Many of the gender imbalances are logical, but many are not, which is why they don't feel realistic at all to many readers.
The main problem I had with your comments is that you said that anyone who accused RJ of sexism for whatever reason was 'blatantly wrong'. You sort of trivialize those things that we are 'left with' after cutting away the complex and subjective debate over gender roles, but those things we are left with are so pervasive in the novels that they give an overall impression of an old-fashioned and often casually sexist man behind the curtain. This is a big turn-off for some people, and while I feel that those who cannot overlook it are missing out on one of the greatest stories of all time, I understand that it is a legitimate complaint.
As for the female nudity...just no. :p I mean, I know you read all the interviews at one point. 'No Male Nudity' (NMN) was not quite as popular as RAFO, but it was definitely one of his favorite stock answers (especially in reference to movie questions - it was his 'one rule') for a good few years. He was pretty blatant about his preferences there, and while I'm sure he had several cultural influences in mind, in the end it's pretty clear that he just enjoyed writing about naked women more than he enjoyed writing about naked men.
I agree that it's wrong to judge RJ as a *person* anachronistically, but at the same time, I think it's wrong to make such a blanket statement about the veracity of our claims of sexism in WoT. It's there, and it's real. I agree that some people take the criticism too far without considering certain things - I've had these debates (on non-WoT forums especially) many times over the years - but it seems to me more constructive to criticize the exaggerations, or to criticize each argument on its own merits, than to denounce any and all claims of sexism in WoT in one fell swoop.
Update (March 14, 2011 4:44 pm):
The "Blatantly Wrong" comment was for those who don't really know feminist theory or gender studies, and who were commenting that sexist characters and culture implied a sexist Robert Jordan. I thought better of it later, however, for the people who actually know what they're talking about. Hence the more scholarly comment directed toward people like yourself. I do not deny that there are things to talk about here. Remember, just like with the word "Racism," there are two meanings of the word "Sexist." There is the knee-jerk usage by people who intend it as an insult. And then there is the more thoughtful, careful usage by people who make a study of such things. In their hands, 'sexist' means showing one's biases and a lack of awareness of certain aspects of male privilege or gender sensitivity--using this word to describe someone is not an insult, but a description of bias. (The types of biases that we all have, and can't totally expunge--though we be aware of and try to compensate for them.) My first comment was directed at the first crowd; my second comment at the second crowd.
Okay, that's fair enough. I tried searching your comments for an implication like that but couldn't find anything concrete.
Update (20 March 2011 5:19 am):
(This should be the last update as Brandon is planning on doing a blog post, presumably. If he does that I might respond in another post...unless, of course, I agree with everything he says, in which case I'll just link it here.)
Re: NMN. I'll give you this point in regards to Rhuidean. No good reason for Aviendha to be nude when Rand/Mat don't have to be.
Brandon
As for the Aes Sedai ceremonies, they still feel very similar to sacred feminine ceremonies I've read before.
Terez
Sure, but most of the female nudity comes in the sweat tents and baths, etc. Though the baths in Fal Dara were egalitarian.
Terez
The descriptions of how Aviendha squats in the sweat tent, for instance, are really quite vulgar if you think about it.
Terez
But you don't see anything like that in the bath scene at Baerlon, for example. And even ritual nudity can get vulgar...
Terez
...like Amys at the sister-bonding ceremony in WH. I mean, come on.
James Powell
There's certainly lots o female iffy WoT nudity, but also quite a lot of male nudity - especially Rand being ogled.
Terez
Yeah, Rand does get ogled once at least. But it's a matter of balance in my opinion.
Terez
Greatest Cadsuane line ever: 'I’ve already seen more of your hairless bottomcheeks than I wish to...'
Terez
'....but if you want to flaunt them in front of all six of us, perhaps someone will enjoy the show.' :)
James Powell
I'm not saying that the nudity issue is balanced - clearly, it's not. But at least *some* effort was being made.
Terez
Yeah, @BrandSanderson and I have gone round a bit on this already. We all recognize that some effort was made. Just saying...
Terez
...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.
Seth Baker
Based largely upon the male characters being prudes. Doesn't that cut the other way for M/F sexual experience?
Terez
Not really, since the root cause is still RJ's brain. And Mat. Is far from a prude.
Terez
But we're at the same time not trying to make RJ out to be particularly sexist. He wasn't, especially for his Age.
James Powell
*nods* I'm more saddened by the almost complete lack of gay WoT characters - but that's just my personal bias.
Terez
No, it's not just your personal bias. It was RJ's. If there hadn't been lesbians you probably wouldn't care, eh?
James Powell
I actually found the whole issue of some women being "pillow friends", but then growing out of it and mooning over men, quite off.
Terez
Right, and the fact that the ones who don't grow out of it are for the most part evil bitches.
Lira Leirner
There are SOME implications of being gay being equally as normal, as outlined here http://ow.ly/4imXS
Terez
Oh, we know. But it's a half-hearted implication. Not even close to half really...
Brandon
Well, at least there wasn't the "Gay=pedophile" implication that some fantasy of the era made...
Brandon
Of course, being Mormon, perhaps I'm not the best qualified to speak of someone's treatment of LGBT issues.
Luckers
Are you sure the nudity doesn't play a practical role in the ter'angreal? I note that in both the...
Luckers
...Accepted rings and the final test the woman must be nude. Strange, two separate rituals taking the same form.
Lira Leirner
And Moiraine, too. I think it's probably the rings. The other testing ter'angreal all require nakedness.
Lira
Aviendha doesn't have to be naked when she goes through the columns. Although I thought they could have told...
Lira
...them to take off their clothes once they're in Rhuidean; don't see needing to taking them off before.
Terez
It's not a requirement of the ter'angreal according to them, but a sign of station1 (humbling).
Terez
Also, with Aviendha, there was the practical aspect of giving up her cadin'sor.
Terez
It's the same with the raisings at the Tower - they never wear those clothes again IIRC.2
Brandon
I think Terez's argument is that women end up in these situations suspiciously more often than men.
Terez
Essentially yes. And that the description is more gratuitous. RJ could have chosen to write male nudity rituals.
Luckers
Mmm. True, but as I've argued in the past re: lack of gay men--we've been more exposed to all female...
Luckers
...organisations and rituals. the one exception, I suppose, is the sweat tents, but again that occurred...
Luckers
...organically. The Wise Ones were planning, and the sweat tents provided a social medium.
Luckers
BTW my original point was simply that Moiraine and Aviendha's nudity may have served a practical purpose...
Luckers
...when going through the ter'angreal--Mat and Rand didn't go through that ter'angreal after all.
Luckers
It's strange that the Aes Sedai and Wise Ones separately built nudity rituals around similar ter'angreal. Necessary?3
Terez
Organically? You say that as if the scene wrote itself. RJ chose to use female sweat tent scenes, female nudity.
Terez
Even if the nudity does have a practical purpose that doesn't change the fact that he chose to write it that way.
Terez
He chose to develop the female organizations, and he chose to show lesbians outside those organizations rather than men.
Luckers
He chose to write the scene with Rand naked and being eyed by a dozen women too. So what?
Terez
Again, it's about balance. The 'suspiciously more often' bit. I feel you are being overly defensive about it.
Luckers
Are we to presume he did it lasciviously? To titillate? This is what I meant by it happening organically.
Luckers
I'm not being defensive--rather I don't see the problem. The female nudity was never vulgar... it just was.
Terez
As I said, it's clear enough he just enjoyed writing about naked women and lesbians more than he enjoyed...
Terez
....writing about naked men and gay men. It's fanservice, but I don't think he thought of it like that.
Brandon
I've got to side with Terez on this one. It IS there. RJ did a LOT of things with great equality, but...
Brandon
...when it came to nudity, he liked showing naked women more than men. I don't think it was vulgar, though.
Terez
Depends on your definition of vulgar. RJ was very good at avoiding vulgarity on the surface, but hinting at it.
Luckers
I still think that implies a little too much premeditation in the depiction, but I'm happy with your description.
Luckers
I'm not denying its presence, I'm denying the implications that the depiction is wrong. It flowed naturally...
Luckers
...from the plot, and wasn't lascivious. I certainly don't think RJ worked to include it.
Luckers
Besides... if you wanna have a gay male character in aMoL I'd not complain. :)
Terez
Okay then. Do you think that RJ's insistence that there be no male nudity in the films was 'organic'?
Terez
That is where this little debate started, because it is essentially the proof of the point.
Brandon
Ha. Well (though I'm on your side) it could be argued that's a marketing decision.
Terez
LOL. Many things could be argued. Some arguments are more logical than others, though. :)
Luckers
I didn't know about this insistence. That's a little... weird, honestly. No, ok, a lot weird.
Terez
See, if you had actually read my debate with @BrandSanderson we wouldn't have to catch you up. ;)
Brandon
It's cultural, unfortunately. You can have female nudity and get a PG-13. But not male. Of course, that...
Brandon
...leads us to the whole topfreedom debate, which ISN'T something I really want to get into.
Terez
It doesn't necessarily lead there. Again, I bring it up mostly for cultural awareness reasons.
Luckers
That's really stupid--but does make some sense. Also, I don't know if you remember Terez but for a while there was...
Luckers
...some fairly rampant pockets of homophobia amongst the fandom--I had this discussion with @zemaille at WorldCon.4
Terez
There still is. It's mostly visible at tor.com - some staunch conservatives there.5
Linda
Oh yeah!
Terez
Which is unfortunate considering Leigh's views. There is a ruckus every time she brings it up.
Luckers
*nods* And as sad as it is to think that RJ was wary of this--it's reasonable to avoid alienating your fans.
Terez
Well, if he was trying to avoid alienating THOSE fans he wouldn't have included lesbians either.
Luckers
Mmm. Lesbians have always been the safer homosexual depiction--which says alot about our society.
Seth Baker
In the end, you're indicting modern Western society, not RJ himself. He knew what you can't do and sell.
Terez
The first bit, yes. The second bit...I don't think that marketing was his only motive.
Seth
There're people who are not morally opposed to homosexuality, are fine with reading FF, but not MM for what it's worth.
Terez
And that is exactly the problem that is being addressed. Not judging RJ so much as ourselves.
Luckers
I hesitate to ask--but what's topfreedom. My mind went to an icky place. :S
Terez
LOL. I imagine it has to do with the fact that men can go shirtless but women can't.
Luckers
OH! That's... much nicer than what I was thinking. Hehe.
Luckers
I will say this, though--the complete lack of any sort of hetero-normative assumption6 in WoT gets RJ my vote.
Brandon
I wish this plane would let me use Tweetlonger to jump into this with more teeth.
Terez
Feel free to jump in with teeth later. We're not going anywhere. :)
Luckers
Yes. More teeth would be awesome! But we aren't going anywhere.
Brandon
This whole issue--homosexuality, conservatism, and the WoT--deserves a serious, thoughtful post.
Brandon
I just can't do that in 100 character bursts.
Terez
Cool. I am looking forward to it.
Luckers
I respect that Brandon. Still, post what you want--we understand its not your full argument.
Brandon
I will say that there IS a gay male in TofM, placed there on my part as I felt similar to you on this issue.
Brandon
I was going to tell you who it was, but figuring this out is the sort of thing you guys love, isn't it?
Terez
YAY! But of course, then you have to be careful not to make him too throw-away....
Terez
I considered Androl earlier, when I considered you might do this. lol. But I will think on it some more.
Luckers
Oh. Hey! Awesome. Ok, now we have to figure it out.
Luckers
Hopefully not Denezel or Hatch7--their wives would be furious. :D
Brandon
Yes. I won't say if it's a new character or one I made a decision on, since there weren't notes either way.
Terez
And he seems to have ruled out Moridin, alas. But that would be sort of Dumbledore-y anyway.8
Terez
(And yes, I have read @BrandSanderson's thoughts on Dumbledore. Just saying. And we're not talking kids' books here.)
Luckers
I'm beginning to think it somewhat strange that I'm the one defending RJ the heaviest given your points...
Luckers
... and the fact that I'm gay. Does that mean my loyalty to RJ defies reason, or that I'm so used to accepting...
Luckers
...the dribbles that are depictions of homosexuality in fantasy? A disturbing thought.
Terez
Nah, not weird at all. You're pretty anti-activist in a lot of ways. Overcompensation, of course. ;)
Terez
I believe you are sensitive to the right-wing idea of the Gay Agenda.
Terez
So you seem to have a reluctance to champion your own causes too loudly, internally as well as externally.
Terez
In some ways it's a healthy reluctance. In some ways, it's sad that it is necessary.
Luckers
Well the gays are plotting world domination--we discussed this in our last High Council. But that's another conversation.
Brandon
You have good reason to defend him, Luckers. There ARE good examples. Arrela is one.
Terez
Seonid isn't bad either. Right? :D I think they might have been responses to the criticism.
Luckers
*nods* Arrela's love was beautiful. And your scene in tGS was heartbreaking.
Brandon
Yes, gay men are few and far between. But it could be much worse. See: Eddings, or worse, Goodkind and Newcomb.
Again, few people think RJ is all bad on this. But the fact that we are so appreciative of his rather biased...
Terez
...and gratuitous inclusion shows how far behind we are as a society.
Brandon
Ha. Terez, you NEED to read Newcomb. If only because I want to see your head explode when you do.
Terez
LOL. Well, I will bring it along to JordanCon then, so you can observe. ;)
Brandon
It is an incredible experience. Goodkind times 1000 in the anti-feminist department. And it seems unconsious.
Luckers
Goodkind disturbs me on more levels than that, but I do take your point--it was what I meant by accepting dribbles.
Brandon
The thing is, [RJ] tried. And in the end, that's the most important thing can ask. The second is that they listen.
Brandon
And I do think RJ listened. I think he grew more sensitive on this subject as time passed.
Terez
Agreed, as I noted before re: the response to criticism. Again, it's more about us than about him.
Luckers
Interesting thought--about listening and changing. Kind of beautiful as well--that fans can give back to authors.
Luckers
That RJ touched on it at all was good--especially when we remember when he was writing these books.
Luckers
It does well to remember just how much the degree to which homosexuality is depicted has changed recently.
Terez
This is true. I just feel that now is the time to blow it out of the water, for that very reason.
Brandon
I'm curious if either of you read Rose of the Prophet, and what you thought of it. (Because of the gay male character.)
Terez
hmm, nope, haven't heard of it. I was told Deathgate was the only thing by [Weiss and Hickman] worth reading.
Luckers
Do you guys realise how much Rand's early arc resonates with a gay teenager?
Luckers
A young man who--through no choice of his own--finds himself to be something hated and feared.
Luckers
Something judged to be morally wrong though no moral choice has been made on his part.
Luckers
The whole arc--the 'men's pride, men's sin' resonated very heavily with me.
Brandon
That's FASCINATING, honestly. I'd never thought of that.
Terez
I bet RJ never thought of it either. :D But yes, it's a good comparison in many ways.
Luckers
All of this is why I never liked Mat in my first readings (when i was like 13). His reaction to Rand was...
Luckers
... a little to close to home. And no I havn't read [Rose of the Prophet]--I will now though. (sorry for going on this tangent).
Luckers
It doesn't really matter to me if RJ meant the comparison--that he depicted something similar with such...
Luckers
...visceral realism is the value of a great writer, because then the fans can take what they need from it.
Luckers
And in truth Rand's arc in dealing with it taught me how to. In fact its one of the reasons I love Cadsuane...
Terez
Because Cadsuane was Rand's faghag? No wait, that was Min! No, she was his beard...
Luckers
She doesn't feel sorry for Rand, or try to coddle him--she treats him like she would any other person...
Luckers
Her refusal to let Rand allow circumstance to victimize him was a powerful and subtle theme.
Terez
Indeed, that's why I like her. And why most people hate her. Because she should respect his authoritay!
Luckers
And I think it is the greatest service anyone in the books has done him. Even if Rand couldn't appreciate it.
Luckers
Re: Parallels between Rand's early arc and being gay... http://tl.gd/9d303a
Brandon
As for the Aes Sedai ceremonies, they still feel very similar to sacred feminine ceremonies I've read before.
Terez
Sure, but most of the female nudity comes in the sweat tents and baths, etc. Though the baths in Fal Dara were egalitarian.
Terez
The descriptions of how Aviendha squats in the sweat tent, for instance, are really quite vulgar if you think about it.
Terez
But you don't see anything like that in the bath scene at Baerlon, for example. And even ritual nudity can get vulgar...
Terez
...like Amys at the sister-bonding ceremony in WH. I mean, come on.
James Powell
There's certainly lots o female iffy WoT nudity, but also quite a lot of male nudity - especially Rand being ogled.
Terez
Yeah, Rand does get ogled once at least. But it's a matter of balance in my opinion.
Terez
Greatest Cadsuane line ever: 'I’ve already seen more of your hairless bottomcheeks than I wish to...'
Terez
'....but if you want to flaunt them in front of all six of us, perhaps someone will enjoy the show.' :)
James Powell
I'm not saying that the nudity issue is balanced - clearly, it's not. But at least *some* effort was being made.
Terez
Yeah, @BrandSanderson and I have gone round a bit on this already. We all recognize that some effort was made. Just saying...
Terez
...that these things were the product of RJ's heterosexual male preferences, and therefore inherently sexist.
Seth Baker
Based largely upon the male characters being prudes. Doesn't that cut the other way for M/F sexual experience?
Terez
Not really, since the root cause is still RJ's brain. And Mat. Is far from a prude.
Terez
But we're at the same time not trying to make RJ out to be particularly sexist. He wasn't, especially for his Age.
James Powell
*nods* I'm more saddened by the almost complete lack of gay WoT characters - but that's just my personal bias.
Terez
No, it's not just your personal bias. It was RJ's. If there hadn't been lesbians you probably wouldn't care, eh?
James Powell
I actually found the whole issue of some women being "pillow friends", but then growing out of it and mooning over men, quite off.
Terez
Right, and the fact that the ones who don't grow out of it are for the most part evil bitches.
Lira Leirner
There are SOME implications of being gay being equally as normal, as outlined here http://ow.ly/4imXS
Terez
Oh, we know. But it's a half-hearted implication. Not even close to half really...
Brandon
Well, at least there wasn't the "Gay=pedophile" implication that some fantasy of the era made...
Brandon
Of course, being Mormon, perhaps I'm not the best qualified to speak of someone's treatment of LGBT issues.
Luckers
Are you sure the nudity doesn't play a practical role in the ter'angreal? I note that in both the...
Luckers
...Accepted rings and the final test the woman must be nude. Strange, two separate rituals taking the same form.
Lira Leirner
And Moiraine, too. I think it's probably the rings. The other testing ter'angreal all require nakedness.
Lira
Aviendha doesn't have to be naked when she goes through the columns. Although I thought they could have told...
Lira
...them to take off their clothes once they're in Rhuidean; don't see needing to taking them off before.
Terez
It's not a requirement of the ter'angreal according to them, but a sign of station1 (humbling).
Terez
Also, with Aviendha, there was the practical aspect of giving up her cadin'sor.
Terez
It's the same with the raisings at the Tower - they never wear those clothes again IIRC.2
Brandon
I think Terez's argument is that women end up in these situations suspiciously more often than men.
Terez
Essentially yes. And that the description is more gratuitous. RJ could have chosen to write male nudity rituals.
Luckers
Mmm. True, but as I've argued in the past re: lack of gay men--we've been more exposed to all female...
Luckers
...organisations and rituals. the one exception, I suppose, is the sweat tents, but again that occurred...
Luckers
...organically. The Wise Ones were planning, and the sweat tents provided a social medium.
Luckers
BTW my original point was simply that Moiraine and Aviendha's nudity may have served a practical purpose...
Luckers
...when going through the ter'angreal--Mat and Rand didn't go through that ter'angreal after all.
Luckers
It's strange that the Aes Sedai and Wise Ones separately built nudity rituals around similar ter'angreal. Necessary?3
Terez
Organically? You say that as if the scene wrote itself. RJ chose to use female sweat tent scenes, female nudity.
Terez
Even if the nudity does have a practical purpose that doesn't change the fact that he chose to write it that way.
Terez
He chose to develop the female organizations, and he chose to show lesbians outside those organizations rather than men.
Luckers
He chose to write the scene with Rand naked and being eyed by a dozen women too. So what?
Terez
Again, it's about balance. The 'suspiciously more often' bit. I feel you are being overly defensive about it.
Luckers
Are we to presume he did it lasciviously? To titillate? This is what I meant by it happening organically.
Luckers
I'm not being defensive--rather I don't see the problem. The female nudity was never vulgar... it just was.
Terez
As I said, it's clear enough he just enjoyed writing about naked women and lesbians more than he enjoyed...
Terez
....writing about naked men and gay men. It's fanservice, but I don't think he thought of it like that.
Brandon
I've got to side with Terez on this one. It IS there. RJ did a LOT of things with great equality, but...
Brandon
...when it came to nudity, he liked showing naked women more than men. I don't think it was vulgar, though.
Terez
Depends on your definition of vulgar. RJ was very good at avoiding vulgarity on the surface, but hinting at it.
Luckers
I still think that implies a little too much premeditation in the depiction, but I'm happy with your description.
Luckers
I'm not denying its presence, I'm denying the implications that the depiction is wrong. It flowed naturally...
Luckers
...from the plot, and wasn't lascivious. I certainly don't think RJ worked to include it.
Luckers
Besides... if you wanna have a gay male character in aMoL I'd not complain. :)
Terez
Okay then. Do you think that RJ's insistence that there be no male nudity in the films was 'organic'?
Terez
That is where this little debate started, because it is essentially the proof of the point.
Brandon
Ha. Well (though I'm on your side) it could be argued that's a marketing decision.
Terez
LOL. Many things could be argued. Some arguments are more logical than others, though. :)
Luckers
I didn't know about this insistence. That's a little... weird, honestly. No, ok, a lot weird.
Terez
See, if you had actually read my debate with @BrandSanderson we wouldn't have to catch you up. ;)
Brandon
It's cultural, unfortunately. You can have female nudity and get a PG-13. But not male. Of course, that...
Brandon
...leads us to the whole topfreedom debate, which ISN'T something I really want to get into.
Terez
It doesn't necessarily lead there. Again, I bring it up mostly for cultural awareness reasons.
Luckers
That's really stupid--but does make some sense. Also, I don't know if you remember Terez but for a while there was...
Luckers
...some fairly rampant pockets of homophobia amongst the fandom--I had this discussion with @zemaille at WorldCon.4
Terez
There still is. It's mostly visible at tor.com - some staunch conservatives there.5
Linda
Oh yeah!
Terez
Which is unfortunate considering Leigh's views. There is a ruckus every time she brings it up.
Luckers
*nods* And as sad as it is to think that RJ was wary of this--it's reasonable to avoid alienating your fans.
Terez
Well, if he was trying to avoid alienating THOSE fans he wouldn't have included lesbians either.
Luckers
Mmm. Lesbians have always been the safer homosexual depiction--which says alot about our society.
Seth Baker
In the end, you're indicting modern Western society, not RJ himself. He knew what you can't do and sell.
Terez
The first bit, yes. The second bit...I don't think that marketing was his only motive.
Seth
There're people who are not morally opposed to homosexuality, are fine with reading FF, but not MM for what it's worth.
Terez
And that is exactly the problem that is being addressed. Not judging RJ so much as ourselves.
Luckers
I hesitate to ask--but what's topfreedom. My mind went to an icky place. :S
Terez
LOL. I imagine it has to do with the fact that men can go shirtless but women can't.
Luckers
OH! That's... much nicer than what I was thinking. Hehe.
Luckers
I will say this, though--the complete lack of any sort of hetero-normative assumption6 in WoT gets RJ my vote.
Brandon
I wish this plane would let me use Tweetlonger to jump into this with more teeth.
Terez
Feel free to jump in with teeth later. We're not going anywhere. :)
Luckers
Yes. More teeth would be awesome! But we aren't going anywhere.
Brandon
This whole issue--homosexuality, conservatism, and the WoT--deserves a serious, thoughtful post.
Brandon
I just can't do that in 100 character bursts.
Terez
Cool. I am looking forward to it.
Luckers
I respect that Brandon. Still, post what you want--we understand its not your full argument.
Brandon
I will say that there IS a gay male in TofM, placed there on my part as I felt similar to you on this issue.
Brandon
I was going to tell you who it was, but figuring this out is the sort of thing you guys love, isn't it?
Terez
YAY! But of course, then you have to be careful not to make him too throw-away....
Terez
I considered Androl earlier, when I considered you might do this. lol. But I will think on it some more.
Luckers
Oh. Hey! Awesome. Ok, now we have to figure it out.
Luckers
Hopefully not Denezel or Hatch7--their wives would be furious. :D
Brandon
Yes. I won't say if it's a new character or one I made a decision on, since there weren't notes either way.
Terez
And he seems to have ruled out Moridin, alas. But that would be sort of Dumbledore-y anyway.8
Terez
(And yes, I have read @BrandSanderson's thoughts on Dumbledore. Just saying. And we're not talking kids' books here.)
Luckers
I'm beginning to think it somewhat strange that I'm the one defending RJ the heaviest given your points...
Luckers
... and the fact that I'm gay. Does that mean my loyalty to RJ defies reason, or that I'm so used to accepting...
Luckers
...the dribbles that are depictions of homosexuality in fantasy? A disturbing thought.
Terez
Nah, not weird at all. You're pretty anti-activist in a lot of ways. Overcompensation, of course. ;)
Terez
I believe you are sensitive to the right-wing idea of the Gay Agenda.
Terez
So you seem to have a reluctance to champion your own causes too loudly, internally as well as externally.
Terez
In some ways it's a healthy reluctance. In some ways, it's sad that it is necessary.
Luckers
Well the gays are plotting world domination--we discussed this in our last High Council. But that's another conversation.
Brandon
You have good reason to defend him, Luckers. There ARE good examples. Arrela is one.
Terez
Seonid isn't bad either. Right? :D I think they might have been responses to the criticism.
Luckers
*nods* Arrela's love was beautiful. And your scene in tGS was heartbreaking.
Brandon
Yes, gay men are few and far between. But it could be much worse. See: Eddings, or worse, Goodkind and Newcomb.
Seth Baker
I'm with you on that. I got bored reading Goodkind because of how annoyingly ANTI-PC it was.
Seth
In the end, I want my stories to refrain from editorializing. Tell the story, and tell it to your audience.
Brandon
Goodkind is...well, let's not go there. It's good, sometimes, to be anti-PC, as the world isn't PC.
Brandon
But if you're going to delve in and editorialize, I believe it important to look at the other side too.
I'm with you on that. I got bored reading Goodkind because of how annoyingly ANTI-PC it was.
Seth
In the end, I want my stories to refrain from editorializing. Tell the story, and tell it to your audience.
Brandon
Goodkind is...well, let's not go there. It's good, sometimes, to be anti-PC, as the world isn't PC.
Brandon
But if you're going to delve in and editorialize, I believe it important to look at the other side too.
I haven't read Newcomb, but yes, Goodkind's inclusion was of the worst sort.
TerezAgain, few people think RJ is all bad on this. But the fact that we are so appreciative of his rather biased...
Terez
...and gratuitous inclusion shows how far behind we are as a society.
Brandon
Ha. Terez, you NEED to read Newcomb. If only because I want to see your head explode when you do.
Terez
LOL. Well, I will bring it along to JordanCon then, so you can observe. ;)
Brandon
It is an incredible experience. Goodkind times 1000 in the anti-feminist department. And it seems unconsious.
Luckers
Goodkind disturbs me on more levels than that, but I do take your point--it was what I meant by accepting dribbles.
Brandon
The thing is, [RJ] tried. And in the end, that's the most important thing can ask. The second is that they listen.
Brandon
And I do think RJ listened. I think he grew more sensitive on this subject as time passed.
Terez
Agreed, as I noted before re: the response to criticism. Again, it's more about us than about him.
Luckers
Interesting thought--about listening and changing. Kind of beautiful as well--that fans can give back to authors.
Luckers
That RJ touched on it at all was good--especially when we remember when he was writing these books.
Luckers
It does well to remember just how much the degree to which homosexuality is depicted has changed recently.
Terez
This is true. I just feel that now is the time to blow it out of the water, for that very reason.
Brandon
I'm curious if either of you read Rose of the Prophet, and what you thought of it. (Because of the gay male character.)
Terez
hmm, nope, haven't heard of it. I was told Deathgate was the only thing by [Weiss and Hickman] worth reading.
Luckers
Do you guys realise how much Rand's early arc resonates with a gay teenager?
Luckers
A young man who--through no choice of his own--finds himself to be something hated and feared.
Luckers
Something judged to be morally wrong though no moral choice has been made on his part.
Luckers
The whole arc--the 'men's pride, men's sin' resonated very heavily with me.
Brandon
That's FASCINATING, honestly. I'd never thought of that.
Terez
I bet RJ never thought of it either. :D But yes, it's a good comparison in many ways.
Luckers
All of this is why I never liked Mat in my first readings (when i was like 13). His reaction to Rand was...
Luckers
... a little to close to home. And no I havn't read [Rose of the Prophet]--I will now though. (sorry for going on this tangent).
Luckers
It doesn't really matter to me if RJ meant the comparison--that he depicted something similar with such...
Luckers
...visceral realism is the value of a great writer, because then the fans can take what they need from it.
Luckers
And in truth Rand's arc in dealing with it taught me how to. In fact its one of the reasons I love Cadsuane...
Terez
Because Cadsuane was Rand's faghag? No wait, that was Min! No, she was his beard...
Luckers
She doesn't feel sorry for Rand, or try to coddle him--she treats him like she would any other person...
Luckers
Her refusal to let Rand allow circumstance to victimize him was a powerful and subtle theme.
Terez
Indeed, that's why I like her. And why most people hate her. Because she should respect his authoritay!
Luckers
And I think it is the greatest service anyone in the books has done him. Even if Rand couldn't appreciate it.
Luckers
Re: Parallels between Rand's early arc and being gay... http://tl.gd/9d303a
Quote:
"No, I can't. I mean . . . I didn't do it on purpose. It just happened. I don't want to - to channel the Power. I won't ever do it again. I swear it."
"You don't want to," the Amyrlin Seat said. "Well, that's wise of you. And foolish, too. Some can be taught to channel; most cannot. A few, though, have the seed in them at birth. Sooner or later, they wield the One Power whether they want to or not, as surely as roe makes fish. You will continue to channel, boy. You can't help it. And you had better learn to channel, learn to control it, or you will not live long enough to go mad. The One Power kills those who cannot control its flow."
"How am I supposed to learn?" he demanded. Moiraine and Verin just sat there, unruffled, watching him. Like spiders. "How? Moiraine claims she can't teach me anything, and I don't know how to learn, or what. I don't want to, anyway. I want to stop. Can't you understand that? To stop!"
--That desperation is something I remember. Then this...
Quote:
He paused, frowning, thinking things through. Finally, he said quietly, "Rand, can you channel?" Mat gave a strangled gasp. Rand let the banner drop; he hesitated only a moment before nodding wearily. "I did not ask for it. I don't want it. But. . . . But I do not think I know how to stop it."
--and finally...
Quote:
Mat hesitated, looking sideways at Rand. "Look, I know you came along to help me, and I am grateful. I really am. But you just are not the same anymore. You understand that, don't you?" He waited as if he expected an answer. None came. Finally he vanished into the trees, back toward the camp.
--Potent scenes. Especially Mat's last lines. *shrug*
TerezYeah, I knew exactly what you were talking about as soon as you mentioned it. Perrin isn't much better.
Terez
Perrin is just not as thoughtlessly hurtful as Mat is. He's more the silent disapproval type.
Luckers
Though Perrin does realise the hypocrisy, and feel bad, so I didn't mind so much. :)
Linda
Yes, I appreciated Perrin's sympathy and tact - like when he said Rand is now a dreaded figure.
Linda
For instance he suggested that while running was understandable, it might not be possible.
Linda
Of course, Perrin is coming to terms with being a werewolf, so understandable he knows how Rand feels.
Luckers
And with Perrin the parallel stops--Rand is a genuine threat, whereas homosexuality isn't.
Linda
Both Perrin and Rand loathe themselves because they feel they are a threat to society.
Luckers
Just got a rather abrupt tweet from someone who I think thought I was implying Rand was gay.
Luckers
Which clearly is accurate. The Harem are the Red-herring to end all red-herrings.
Terez
LOL. Yeah, well...ignorance and prejudice go hand in hand (or so they say). ;)
Terez
You know you're gay when you need THREE beards to maintain your cover.
Luckers
Lol!
Brandon
And...half of my in-flight wot reread time was sucked up by a great twitter conversation about gender and LGBT issues in the WoT.
Terez
Ohhhh, blame it on us will you! :p You knew as soon as you saw you had Twitter you weren't getting any work done. ;)
Luckers
Haha. Yeah--I've written a hundred and fifty words in three hours. Today was gonna be my productive day too. *sigh*/
Brandon
I have a new goal: to get Terez and Leigh Butler to do a feminist review of Newcomb's 5th Sorceress for Tor.com. How can I make this happen?
Peter Ahlstrom
Sadist.
Terez
LOL. If you can talk Leigh into it, I'm so down with that.
Luckers
Lol. A gay, a feminist and a Mormon walk into a bar--whereupon they have a deep and meaningful conversation about sexuality in WoT. #NoJokes
Terez
LMAO. It's funny, though...I don't really think of myself as a feminist. Just an equalist.
Luckers
I was just being funny with the no jokes thing--the reality of us three having that conversation struck me.
Terez
Not to mention, you were raised Catholic, and I was raised Southern Baptist. Now we need a Muslim...
12 comments:
I enjoyed your post and wanted to add a comment. I do not view Robert Jordan as being progressive because I don't think he stands out amongst his peers. Comparing him against contemporaries such as David Eddings, Melanie Rawn, or Steve Brust...I don't find RJ to be any more progressive on gender roles. I fact I find most of them to be fairly similar.
While RJ may have been better than the previous generation of Speculative Fiction writers, I don't think this necessarily make him progressive.
On a separate note, I have never really bought Brandon's argument that WoT was sexist by design. Sure that may absolve RJ of the sexist label but it doesn't mean the series isn't sexist. I am not sure what additional depth it adds to narrative to build a society on that foundation either.
But again, as I said in my post, this has never bothered me and I have never held it against RJ or his works. I always viewed it as a generational & cultural issue. I don't get mad at my grandparents for their cultural foibles.
I just figure it is worthwhile to be honest about the facts.
Thanks for reading. You're right that RJ wasn't incredibly progressive in comparison to some of his peers when it comes to gender roles, but he was pretty progressive when it comes to the number of females on the main cast and the in-depth development of those characters.
As for the depth that comes from RJ's attempt at role reversal, it's supposed to demonstrate what it might be like in a world that is in some ways dominated by women. Now, RJ was quick to point out that the only true matriarchy in Randland is Far Madding, but the tainting of saidin has led to some amount of prejudice against men. This is balanced in RJ's mind by the fact that physiological differences between men and women will still shape the way gender roles develop. Men will still be doing the heavy farm work and the soldiering, for example, though the latter might change a bit more with Aludra's inventions which remove the relevance of upper body strength in at least some cases (the smaller explosive weapons for sure).
So, that is where the complexity and subjectivity comes in. The tainting of saidar and the existence of the White Tower have led to a certain amount of freedom for women, but the technological limitations of Randland have likewise limited women's freedom along the same lines as our own history, but many people disagree on various points as to what is logical, and what is not.
In any case, I find him to be mostly progressive when it comes to treatment of sexuality in general. The text is permeated with some very non-conservative subtext - most authors couldn't pull off that level of sexuality without the story coming off as smutty - and even the surface text conveys in a non-obscene way the level of sexual freedom that exists in the WoT world. My biggest hang-up there comes from the fact that, of the main cast, only Mat takes advantage of that sexual freedom, while all of the female leads make it clear they are virgins. We have to branch out to Morgase and Tylin and Berelain to get sexually experienced women (not counting lesbian relationships which, in the traditional sense, do not spoil the goods). It seems like Min would have been a perfect candidate to balance Mat, and I sometimes feel like Moiraine and Siuan never got around to having lovers because they were too close to the heart of the plot.
Some think it's a silly thing to be bothered about, and that's true when the issue is considered by itself. Most of the boys are virgins, too. Mat is just so in-your-face that the lack of a woman to balance him bugs me. But it goes along with other things, like the female nudity, and the lesbians. All the true lesbians are evil, and all the good girls grow out of it and get them a man. Gay men barely get a mention, but lesbians are all over the place, and not just in the White Tower. But in Eddings, the closest thing you get are eunuchs, if I recall correctly.
See, I wouldn't view the White Tower as a sign of gender equality. By and large it follows traditional idea that the only way for a woman to gain power is by going around the normal power structure. I would equate the White Tower and Aes Sedai to witches. Yes they are powerful but only due to their access to the occult. Even with in the text of WoT this theme is conveyed by the common people and the White Cloaks themselves parrot the whole witch demagoguery.
The other parallel you could draw with the White Tower is how it ties into the second method for women to circumvent the power structure and that was through a convent. Particularly in the sense of the Three Oaths are the women of the White Tower bound to the greater moral code in the way nunnery's are bound to the church, aka the greater moral code. Throw in the fact that Aes Sedai rarely marry and the innuendo's of lesbian relationships along with an extremely rigid life...the White Tower seems awfully close to a convent.
In both ways, I see the White Tower as less a symbol of progressivism and more a rehash of past means for women to advance beyond the traditional role.
In regards to women's sexuality, I would disagree with Morgase as an example simply because she spends a decent part of the story being effectively raped. Once that portion of the story is over, she develops more of a victims mentality...avoids Tallanvor and then fixates on Gareth Bryne to the near exclusion of all else.
Berelain I think fall too easily into the traditional role of females with political power of using their sexuality as a weapon. In particular Berelain seems forced into this role.
Tylin is a more interesting character as she at least seems free with her sexuality, but this freedom. But, that freedom was bought by becoming a widow.
I agree that the female leads are annoyingly virginal.
Sex in general I did not really think was a big deal. I felt that all of the innuendo hearkened back to Morality Code era Hollywood of which Jordan would have been familiar with. So, all of what we would view as subtle may not exactly be subtle.
I don't think that the White Tower is 'a sign of gender equality' or a 'symbol of progressivism' at all. As I said, its existence has theoretical effects on gender roles because it normalizes women in positions of power, and while it is aloof in some ways, it is not completely so, and any prejudices against women that might arise normally should theoretically be curbed a great deal. It's a matter of conditioning.
There are many paths to power, so I am confused as to why you seem to think that the power of Aes Sedai is somehow illegitimate just because it is based on their magic and their institution. Also, it's far from the only way for a woman to gain power. Women can do pretty much anything aside from the grunt jobs that men typically qualify for, and who wants those jobs anyway? Smithing is hard. Soldiering can get you killed. There are more lucrative career choices, most of which are open to women. It's less so in backwoods places like the Two Rivers, of course...or at least it's different.
Indeed, the White Tower is similar to a convent. Hats off to Guinevere, who became the abbess of a convent after she betrayed Arthur.
As for Morgase, I gave her as an example of a sexually experienced woman, not an example of a woman with sexual freedom. I was very careful in how I worded that because of both Morgase and Berelain. Women with true sexual freedom...Tylin and Myrelle (who has her own harem) are good examples, and both of them are rapists in their own way.
Also, I just realized I said saidar instead of saidin in my last comment. My bad.
I nit-pick the White Tower simply because in Western tradition women fell into one of four roles: Wife, Harlot, Witch and Nun. Nun is sort of interchangeable to any one dedicated to a religious pursuit. Witch, Nun and Harlot were the three roles a woman could take that circumvented the traditional role of a wife. But, in circumventing the traditional, women fell outside the cultural norm and had special rules to govern their behavior as a result
I see the White Tower as fitting at least one if not two of those outsider roles. Since WoT is largely Medevial and/or Western in setup, that fits the White Tower back into the traditional framework of dealing with women...and thus sexist.
The White Tower fits into a greater scheme where most of the major female political structures in WoT fall into that traditional structure of female power. The White Tower is just the most obvious. But, you can make the argument just as easily for Wisdom's, Wise Women, etc.
As far as Morgase, I understand your point better now but I think that shifts Morgase then into the same category as Tylin. She is experienced because she is a widow. As such she still fits to a degree in the role of "wife". If she had not been married she would suffer the stigma of harlot.
That is why I think Berelain is interesting because she almost personifies this friction. She portrays herself as a sexual being, but not being married, is still a virgin. So, she will not gain that experience until after she is married.
Okay, first of all I have never taken feminist studies or any such class and I am 16, and I didn't have time to read the comments. Now onto what I have to say.
Things change over time, if we look back at Shakespeare he is blatantly sexist, but in his time that was how the world worked so can he really be blamed? I like to think the same thing with RJ, all though there is obviously sexism, making him to seem bad can he be completely blamed, yes it was his choice and such but can he be completely blamed for it?
I like to think not. Anyways this is just my two opinion, feel free to correct me I love being proved wrong.
Your sentiments have already been explored pretty thoroughly in the above.
I agree that RJ was very progressive in some respects; my sexism article was criticism of someone I admire. I'd never heard of the Bechdel Test until reading this post, but the WoT does indeed pass it. For me as a young female reader, one of the most attractive aspects of the WoT was the idea of world where women can hold more authority than men. What a concept! Usually in genre fiction, female-dominated societies are portrayed as evil or ruthless. RJ envisioned a world where females with a power edge allowed for a balanced world, or at least a world that was no worse than a male-dominated one. I've never seen that in any other work of fiction. RJ deserves accolades for that.
>> Simply put, if there WEREN'T some of these gender imbalances in cultures, the books wouldn't feel realistic. Once we remove that, we're left with a few of the smaller things--the spanking issue, the issue of female nudity, treatments of homosexuality, and the narrative's fondness for noticing female anatomy. Much smaller issues, I believe, though still there.
I don't see the spanking as a small issue. It's treated as BDSM, but since when is BDSM so widespread that everyone does it? I can buy one or two BDSM relationships. Perrin and Faile. Suian and Bryne. But the entire nation of Saldaea?!?!? Nope, I don't buy it.
I'd argue that the issues aren't exactly small, either.
But I'd add that Robert Jordan wasn't sexist in the traditional male-pig sense of the word. I think he had great respect for women. He just had a very strange and unique view of male-female relations.
And I'd add that Brandon Sanderson is doing a great job with writing the female characters.
Thanks for dropping by, Abby!
I never got the impression that the Saldaeans were necessarily into BDSM on the whole - in fact, it was Perrin's idea to introduce that element to his relationship with Faile - but rather they are just into yelling in general? Perhaps I need to re-read your post on it.
Also, I think that Brandon acknowledged that spanking is not exactly a small issue when he told everyone how uncomfortable he was writing the Cadsuane-Semirhage spanking scene. That's part of why I sometimes get the impression of 'defending RJ's legacy' from his comments (which is, of course, admirable, if not exactly helpful in this sort of debate).
why is this such a big issue. I don't understand. I guess I am just too stupid. RJ was a man. Despite everything that was going on in these books he was just a man. A man that created a fantastic world that both you and I get to immerse ourselves in on a daily basis but he is still just a man. Every single part of every single word he ever wrote is going to be biased. It is biased by the things he has seen and the things he has experienced in his life. To call him sexist simply for being a man, simply for writing things the way he saw HIS world, a world that HE created... give me a break. You are over analyzing the words of a man who wrote some books. Gender equality is a bigger myth than any book you have ever read. Name one place on this planet Earth where there is really, truly, gender equality and maybe someone will give your nonsense argument some merit. P.S. Gender Equality will never happen. That's just as foolish as telling the sun and the moon that they serve the same purpose.
Tearko, you seemed to have missed the entire point of the post. I suggest reading it again.
Post a Comment