'Chick-lit'

In some ways I find Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time books more sexist, even though thus far there has not been any real graphic violent treatment against women, and the majority of the characters are in fact women, and they are strong characters, but at the same time there are a lot of stereotypes woven into how they are portrayed.

I can only stand a handful of the women characters in the book, the rest just grate upon my nerves, and even the one's I like have a tendency to at times irritate me because of their behavior.

The main male character has 3 women hopelessly in love with him, and there is this other character, who is just so handsome that any woman he walks past, cannot help herself from flushing and becoming weak in the knees *rolls eyes*

And the way the women walk sometimes just makes you want to strangle them. Jordan does enforce a lot of stereotypes in the development of his female characters. But I still enjoy the books and though irritated at times, I am not truly personally offended by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

In some ways I find Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time books more sexist, even though thus far there has not been any real graphic violent treatment against women, and the majority of the characters are in fact women, and they are strong characters, but at the same time there are a lot of stereotypes woven into how they are portrayed.

I can only stand a handful of the women characters in the book, the rest just grate upon my nerves, and even the one's I like have a tendency to at times irritate me because of their behavior.

The main male character has 3 women hopelessly in love with him, and there is this other character, who is just so handsome that any woman he walks past, cannot help herself from flushing and becoming weak in the knees *rolls eyes*

And the way the women walk sometimes just makes you want to strangle them. Jordan does enforce a lot of stereotypes in the development of his female characters. But I still enjoy the books and though irritated at times, I am not truly personally offended by it.

---

That isn't sexism, by my wager, I just think that Jordan didn't know too much about women, and that is the flaw - his perception was perhaps limited, and, the women getting on one's nerves is a fair criticism, but it isn't a feminist criticism, it just shows his failure in creating characters.

The actual Jordan landscape though - the world - is dominated by Matriarchal forces - any sort of misogynist undertext is usually undercut as absurd, rude, or evil. The flaws all are in the rendition of the characters - not in that they are unequal, but that they are less realistic.

In concept, the whole thing is built upon the Yin and Yang binary - but they aren't unequal, merely, they are more poorly drawn.

The so called man who is so good looking that everyone stares is counter balanced by an equivalent of the opposite sex, whose has the same peculiar quality.

And, as for polygamy, well that is rooted in Jordan's source material as a mythological intertext - the purpose of that is perhaps to add conflict, but I don't think it as being misogynist, since all three women clearly dominate the man.


Now, Goodkind is another story - I don't think there is one female character in his series that doesn't get brutally raped somewhere throughout the course of the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

That isn't sexism, by my wager, I just think that Jordan didn't know too much about women, and that is the flaw - his perception was perhaps limited, and, the women getting on one's nerves is a fair criticism, but it isn't a feminist criticism, it just shows his failure in creating characters.

The actual Jordan landscape though - the world - is dominated by Matriarchal forces - any sort of misogynist undertext is usually undercut as absurd, rude, or evil. The flaws all are in the rendition of the characters - not in that they are unequal, but that they are less realistic.

In concept, the whole thing is built upon the Yin and Yang binary - but they aren't unequal, merely, they are more poorly drawn.

The so called man who is so good looking that everyone stares is counter balanced by an equivalent of the opposite sex, whose has the same peculiar quality.

And, as for polygamy, well that is rooted in Jordan's source material as a mythological intertext - the purpose of that is perhaps to add conflict, but I don't think it as being misogynist, since all three women clearly dominate the man.


Now, Goodkind is another story - I don't think there is one female character in his series that doesn't get brutally raped somewhere throughout the course of the text.

---

You mean all the women sniffing (read: women are annoying, especially to men) or the way half the Aes Sedai act like spoiled 13 year old girls despite being 19 or 20 in certain cases (read: women act like little girls) or the endless descriptions of women caring more about how pretty they look in front of men, despite some of them being insanely powerful Channelers, doesn't seem a tad bit sexist to you? Not at all? Really?

Oh, no doubt there are good elements too. A work can be liberating in one way and stereotypical in another. It's not an either/or proposition.

But I think the way that Goodkind portrays women is a lot more mature and fair (in the way in which the characters develop) then that of Jordan.

The women in Goodkind's work are a lot less high school girlish than Jordan. They are much more rational and by far more likeable.

Well for me the issue with Rand and his women is beyond just the idea of polygamy, I accept that a part of the Aiel culture, but rather the fact that you have this group of women, and men who are completely wishy washy, and cannot decide who they really do love, and all of them playing childish games to try and manipulate each other.

I think the way in which women view and treated men within the books is to a degree sexist. While they may have the upper hand, they do so in an underhanded way. Men and women don't have any real communication with each other. But are constantly trying to undercut each other and trick each other into getting what they want. No one really speaks up front and honestly.

It is like in the middle of this fantasy background, you have this whole high school drama playing out among the characters.

And I am not really trying to criticize the books, I am a fan, just giving my impression about the female characterization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

You mean all the women sniffing (read: women are annoying, especially to men) or the way half the Aes Sedai act like spoiled 13 year old girls despite being 19 or 20 in certain cases (read: women act like little girls) or the endless descriptions of women caring more about how pretty they look in front of men, despite some of them being insanely powerful Channelers, doesn't seem a tad bit sexist to you? Not at all? Really?

Oh, no doubt there are good elements too. A work can be liberating in one way and stereotypical in another. It's not an either/or proposition.

---

Cross examine that with the male characters - are they any less stereotypical - ones obsessed with chivalry rather ironically, or with gambling, or with horses? Do the men act any less spoiled or selfish? Some of them, I would wager, probably are portrayed as conscious of their looks as the female characters. It isn't sexism, merely bad characterization - the question is about equality, and, quite simply, if anything one should be arguing the other way, and condemning Jordan for mistreatment of men within his fantasy society.

As for the obsession with clothing, for instance, that is part of Jordan's schtick - he is obsessed with culture, and clothing is perhaps the best visual way to demonstrate differences.

Lets be honest - are the male characters any more mature, and are they any less self centered, and preoccupied with issues that aren't related - such as drinking, gambling, as apposed to fashion, dancing - the definition of feminism is essentially a desire for equality between males a females - clearly Jordan doesn't sketch them as being neutered, or ungendered, but that doesn't imply that he sketches them as being unequal - there are more "powerful (in the fantasy sense" female characters than male characters - Jordan, as I have said before, merely doesn't know anything about women, and guesses what he thinks women would do, and gets it wrong too often.

There are gender issues, but not built on sexism, but rather perhaps a too peculiar gender divide, based on one man's inability to understand characters.

At any rate though, I've met female readers of the texts who like the particular episodes obsessed with such things as fashion - I know someone who thinks that the most interesting aspect of the series - the different things people wear. But, when it comes down to it, in terms of equality, there isn't really one instance of men being portrayed as somehow "better" than women, or even in higher places of authority because of their gender, whereas there are plenty of examples in the opposite way, of women, because of gender, being higher than men.

So in a sense, it is a sexist text, but not a misogynist one.

It is fair, for instance, to fault Jordan as being unable to effectively draw female characters with rounded personalities and realistic attitudes - that is fair criticism, but I'd be weary of labeling that as sexist - one could, for instance, apply similar criticism to G. G. Marquez's Macondo women and men, but would we call that sexist? IS it a sexist text, or merely an intensely gendered one?


I wouldn't make that claim - I just think Jordan lacks as a character author and developer - he certainly doesn't seem to make his characters such stereotypes intentionally, he merely doesn't seem to understand women at all, and I guess his wife/editor doesn't either, or doesn't fix the problems.


It's been a long time since I've read Jordan, so I'm merely going with memory - but I don't think that women are given a particularly "misogynist angle" and I don't think Jordan had any intention of showing them as lesser, or even believed them to be in any way lesser, he just isn't that great a characterize - his real talent lies within drawing and manipulating distinct cultures into a fabric - that is where the real power of the series comes from, in my opinion, since he makes the countries be at war with each other, but, at the same time, isn't too divisive over who is better or worse - only the evil Other types are, and that is intentional, and they are intentionally either not human, or from everywhere within humanity, no matter what gender, race, or class.


There are gender problems, I would wager, but I don't think it comes from a gender binary imbalance - more from an imbalance of the author's knowledge, and an inability to draw characters with definite personalities - after all, the male characters are pretty stereotyped too. It's just, the stereotypes of males don't seem to get deconstructed as quickly, because generally female stereotypes, although not in this case, are used to reinforce a binary of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho

It's been interesting to read all the replies. My brother reads modern war books; they're usually entitled 'Commando' or something similar. I guess these might be read by males, predominantly.

---

When I was 14 me and my class mates used to read and swop Sven Hessel novels, with titles like "Wheels of Terror" and "Legion of the Damned". Non of the girls participated. They were reading "Little Women" and The Follyfoot series, (pony adventures.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Cross examine that with the male characters - are they any less stereotypical - ones obsessed with chivalry rather ironically, or with gambling, or with horses? Do the men act any less spoiled or selfish? Some of them, I would wager, probably are portrayed as conscious of their looks as the female characters. It isn't sexism, merely bad characterization - the question is about equality, and, quite simply, if anything one should be arguing the other way, and condemning Jordan for mistreatment of men within his fantasy society.

As for the obsession with clothing, for instance, that is part of Jordan's schtick - he is obsessed with culture, and clothing is perhaps the best visual way to demonstrate differences.

Lets be honest - are the male characters any more mature, and are they any less self centered, and preoccupied with issues that aren't related - such as drinking, gambling, as apposed to fashion, dancing - the definition of feminism is essentially a desire for equality between males a females - clearly Jordan doesn't sketch them as being neutered, or ungendered, but that doesn't imply that he sketches them as being unequal - there are more "powerful (in the fantasy sense" female characters than male characters - Jordan, as I have said before, merely doesn't know anything about women, and guesses what he thinks women would do, and gets it wrong too often.

There are gender issues, but not built on sexism, but rather perhaps a too peculiar gender divide, based on one man's inability to understand characters.

At any rate though, I've met female readers of the texts who like the particular episodes obsessed with such things as fashion - I know someone who thinks that the most interesting aspect of the series - the different things people wear. But, when it comes down to it, in terms of equality, there isn't really one instance of men being portrayed as somehow "better" than women, or even in higher places of authority because of their gender, whereas there are plenty of examples in the opposite way, of women, because of gender, being higher than men.

So in a sense, it is a sexist text, but not a misogynist one.

---

I agree with much of what you have said here. The men are in their own way equally stereotyped as the women are in how they are portrayed. There is Rand's view toward women in which while the Maidens of the Spear are just as capable as the men in war, he somehow thinks he has to protect them more so than the men in his ideas of chivalry, and the fact that he cannot even kill one of the most vile women there is, when she would kill him and all his friends, in a heart beat, just because she is a woman, and the ideas some of the men have that they have to deny themselves love because of the lifestyle they live.

The men can be equally hardheaded and stubborn, as well as immature as the women in certain instances, and they can also often be preoccupied with admiring the physical assets of other women.

Yet, at the same time, I find that the male characters on the whole come off as much more likeable than that of many of the female characters, I am often left rooting for or feeling sorry for some of the men because of the way the women are trying to always manipulate them around.

I read the first 6 books of Goodkind. I found that his descriptions were kind of stale and his writing-style was kind of boring. The first book was great, though it contained many story,character, and plot flaws. I also didn't really care for the overuse of sex that wasn't at all tasteful, given the plot.

It was almost as if he wanted to find any sexual situation in which to put all of his many heroines/villianesses. He writes with much description of the female body in a sexual way, but he does not use the same amount of sexual description for his male characters.

its boggling how threads can just up and die...

I didn't read everything carefully, so I might have missed an operative definition of "chick lit." id like to offer one up just for the purpose of some things I have to say afterwards. chick lit (and its modern cousin chick flick) is writing predominantly focused on romantic relationships through the eyes of predominantly female characters.

its not that men don't like romance per se, or cant or don't read jane austen, or jane eyre, but its not their natural bent (maybe unless we include chivalric romance).

im reminded of the phrase "women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex."

and one from Seinfeld when it comes to how the genders use the tv remote: "men hunt, and women nest."

and this one I surmised: romance novels are for women what playboy magazine is for men.

I think the main reason im posting here after a 14yr lull in the thread is that the title reminded me of an interaction I had a few years ago that's worth sharing. I was talking with someone I knew from high school days and was asking how his kids were doing in school. one of his kids was a boy in 10th grade, and he wasn't liking English class at all. I asked why not---well they were reading jane austen for goodness sake!

if one of the goals in high school English class is for students to develop an appreciation for literature, let me submit that having 16yr old boys reading chick lit isn't the best way to do it!

"if one of the goals in high school English class is for students to develop an appreciation for literature, let me submit that having 16yr old boys reading chick lit isn't the best way to do it!"

Lol ! "Tragedy, Epic, and Myth" class worked well for me.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor

I had a girlfriend once tell me Tom Clancy’s books were romance novels for men.

during my high school days, seniors in English took four ten-week mini courses as opposed to one long 40 week class. during my junior year the English dept solicited ideas for new mini courses. I suggested "survival literature" and they adopted it. I took the class the following year but ironically cannot remember what we read! but, to this day I still love survival literature.

at least one or two people earlier in the thread mentioned Clancy. its an interesting consideration. if I had to guess though, I suspect more females read Clancy than males read harlequin.