Wayne's sexist?

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood he/him]

Now, I might just be under reacting to it, but is Wayne sexist? I know a lot of people say he is, and the stuff with what's her face, cool lesbian gun lady, fit with that, but... those interactions happen like three or four times at most in four Mistborn books. 

Maybe I just need stuff like Sokka outright saying that Suki couldn't be a warrior to actually get it. I really do want to know what's going on here and why he seems sexist to people. (And maybe if what things make him seem sexist to other people and doesn't to me. That would be super enlightening and I really want to know before I publish my books if I'm unintentionally sexist sometimes lol.)

Remember...

Wayne comic books in era 3.

[RoyalBeeMage he/him]

i dont know. i never picked up on it. might need a re read to get a good read on wayne. he was always a wild card to me

[Iron-Eyes he/him]

I didn't think that he was sexist, as he seemed to have no problem working with Marasi in the last book.

[RoyalBeeMage he/him]

2 hours ago, Iron-Eyes said:

I didn't think that he was sexist, as he seemed to have no problem working with Marasi in the last book.

thats mostly why i was confused when i saw this

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

I definitely thought there was more evidence that he was.

[Treamayne]

I never felt he was sexist, just slightly oblivious to peoples' responses (verbal and nonverbal) to what he said and did. 

As far as Ranette was concerned, it felt much more like she was not "out" in the early books (and more likely from an overabundance of "I like my privacy" rather than a "I care if people care about my orientation" mindset) and Wayne just never picked up on that - because he was still stuck in the pre-adolescent "Picking on somebody means you like them" mindset. You may notice that once she was "out" (and he realized she wasn't just saying that to deter him) their relationship normalized and they actually became friends (or, at least, Vitriolic Best Buds).

1 hour ago, Lego Mistborn said:

I definitely thought there was more evidence that he was.

Which evidence?

Curious because I never noticed any. . . 

 

[J. Magi she/her]

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

I never felt he was sexist, just slightly oblivious to peoples' responses (verbal and nonverbal) to what he said and did. 

As far as Ranette was concerned, it felt much more like she was not "out" in the early books (and more likely from an overabundance of "I like my privacy" rather than a "I care if people care about my orientation" mindset) and Wayne just never picked up on that - because he was still stuck in the pre-adolescent "Picking on somebody means you like them" mindset. You may notice that once she was "out" (and he realized she wasn't just saying that to deter him) their relationship normalized and they actually became friends (or, at least, Vitriolic Best Buds).

Which evidence?

Curious because I never noticed any. . . 

 

I completely agree, with this.

Another good point towards Wayne being respectful is that one scene with MeLann-- I think it's in BOM. She had to look like a security guard or whatever so she uses a masculine build for her body. upon asking if Wayne was alright with it, he said he was. I can't remember what exactly he said, but I don't remember it coming off as condescending or rude. 

Even if there is a little bit of sexism in his character at the start of the story, I think he clearly learns and moves past it by the end of the series, as part of his character development. (Like Sokka, I guess). He learns to live with Steris, he respects MeLann, and he trusts and relies on Marasi. 

Edited February 15 by justice magician

[Immortal Platypus]

I don't think he's sexist, he's just kinda stupid at times

[Treamayne]

53 minutes ago, justice magician said:

I think it's in BOM. She had to look like a security guard or whatever so she uses a masculine build for her body. upon asking if Wayne was alright with it, he said he was. I can't remember what exactly he said, but I don't remember it coming off as condescending or rude. 

Well, not to MeLaan anyway. BoM Ch 10:

Spoiler

“I’m good, really,” MeLaan called from the next room. A second later she opened the door again. She wore the same bones and build, but this time she was completely bare-chested.

It wasn’t a woman’s chest.

“I solved the problem,” MeLaan said. “I’ll go as a fellow. That will probably be more covert anyway. Just have to choose the right bones.”

Wayne cocked his head. She’d sculpted her face too, giving herself masculine features. Steris’s eyes were bulging. At least that was worth seeing.

“You’re…” Steris said. “You’ll become a…”

“A man?” MeLaan asked. “Yeah. It’ll look better when I’ve decided on the right body. Need to settle on a voice, too.” She looked around the room. “Um, is this a problem?”

Everyone looked at Wayne for some reason. He thought for a moment, then shrugged. Maybe he should have given his shoes to her.

“You don’t mind?” Steris demanded of him.

“It’s still her.”

“But she looks like a man!”

“So does the lady what runs this house,” Wayne said, “but she has kids, so someone still decided to take her an—”

“It will do, MeLaan,” Wax said, resting a hand on Steris’s arm.

This might be the type of comment people mean though - if you take his comment about the proprietor as being motivated by gender bias instead of just "Wayne says the first thing he thinks of" or simply "Wayne's an equal opportunity deadpan snarker". . . 

But then you also have to remember Wayne was already a bit gender fluid because of the way he uses disguise. SoS Ch 12:

Spoiler

The green in front of the skyscraper felt right empty, now that so many people had left. He figured that would soon change, when Marasi returned with some more constables. She’d run off to fetch them, and give a report. That meant Wayne was the sole officer of lawkeepin’ in the vicinity. A frightening thought.

“I’ve got one more question for you,” Wayne said to the woman.

“Yes, officer?” she asked.

“Where’d you get those shoes?”

The woman blinked, then looked down. “Um … My shoes?”

“Yeah, your shoes,” Wayne said. “Look plenty comfortable, they do. Can never have too many pairs of black pumps. They go with rusting everything.”

She looked back at him. “You’re a man.”

“Sure am,” Wayne said. “Checked last time I pissed. The shoes?”

“Rousseau’s,” she said. “Third Octant, on Yomen Street.” She paused. “They were on sale last week.”

“Damn!” Wayne said. “That’s beautiful. Thanks. You’re free to go.”

She gave him that look that people seemed to give only to Wayne, the one he hadn’t quite figured. Ah well. He wrote down the name of the shop. If he had to wear those awful pumps from his disguise box one more time, he’d probably go insane.

This probably alters his personal perception on what is acceptable to say in a given situation.

Edited February 15 by Treamayne
SPAG

[Returned]

I never regarded it as being a part of his character or personality, since he never seems to base any decisions or actions on those attitudes or incorporate them into his behavior in any way.

Instead I think that Wayne is purposefully provocative towards others and seizes on anything that he thinks will get a reaction or that he sees people react to. So some of the things he says to people read (or at least can be read) as sexist but they're shallow because the content is irrelevant to him and his thought process-- he wants a response, full stop. I always considered it to be similar to things he says to Wax, some of which are classist or otherwise dismissive of Wax because of his wealth, Steris for being inflexible, the banker in BoM for (Wayne presumes) being too uptight, the scientist he fools with technical-sounding gobbledygook for not being able to admit someone else knows something he does not (I don't remember, was that Irich or a nameless engineer?), etc. Unless he's playing a specific character he typically makes an effort to needle and offend where he can.

It's 100% on point for his character since everything Wayne does in his work (aside from absorbing physical abuse, I guess) is based on getting people to react in certain ways or putting them off balance to make them less effective in things they do. He's a provocateur and does anything to push peoples' buttons, but he's not really invested in any of the things he says to accomplish that, and he may not even notice or consider features like that. I also wonder if he has a more clinical, professional detachment about considerations like that: he's very, very observant of specific traits about people and their backgrounds and lives when he decomposes accents and assembles new ones to suit his needs, but he doesn't seem to care about any of those details very much in any values-based sense.

Whether or not those provocations evaluate to "Wayne is a sexist" (or any other descriptor of his attitudes) is a value judgment. For some people, saying a sexist or sexist-adjacent thing is a transgression in itself no matter the context and necessarily applies the "sexist" descriptor to a character. For others there can be a separation between saying a sexist thing and being a sexist. For still others it's a matter of degree between affirmatively doing bad things and failing to do good things such that specific instances aren't enough to judge, alone. And lots of other items. Any writer looking to have their writing be universally considered unimpeachable is likely to be disappointed, though someone who wants to write a sexist character will find success to be a very attainable goal.

Edited February 15 by Returned

[not an Evil Librarian]

A lot of people may not be overtly prejudiced, but may still have unconscious bias. For example, "I'm not racist, I like all races (even the bad ones)". Someone can intellectually acknowledge that women are equal to men, but still unconsciously believe that women belong in a certain place or should behave a certain way, and get upset, or at least surprised when they step outside of their expectations. 

This does not describe Wayne. Wayne is the opposite. He will make sexist comments and misogynistic jokes that he doesn't really believe, probably a combination of his humor and upbringing. He doesn't view women as being less capable and doesn't get upset or surprised when women step outside of traditional gender norms. He also is clearly in touch with his feminine side and has no issue dressing as a woman or doing feminine things. So basically, Wayne is a misogynistic feminist icon.

[J. Magi she/her]

39 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Well, not to MeLaan anyway. BoM Ch 10:

  Hide contents

“I’m good, really,” MeLaan called from the next room. A second later she opened the door again. She wore the same bones and build, but this time she was completely bare-chested.

It wasn’t a woman’s chest.

“I solved the problem,” MeLaan said. “I’ll go as a fellow. That will probably be more covert anyway. Just have to choose the right bones.”

Wayne cocked his head. She’d sculpted her face too, giving herself masculine features. Steris’s eyes were bulging. At least that was worth seeing.

“You’re…” Steris said. “You’ll become a…”

“A man?” MeLaan asked. “Yeah. It’ll look better when I’ve decided on the right body. Need to settle on a voice, too.” She looked around the room. “Um, is this a problem?”

Everyone looked at Wayne for some reason. He thought for a moment, then shrugged. Maybe he should have given his shoes to her.

“You don’t mind?” Steris demanded of him.

“It’s still her.”

“But she looks like a man!”

“So does the lady what runs this house,” Wayne said, “but she has kids, so someone still decided to take her an—”

“It will do, MeLaan,” Wax said, resting a hand on Steris’s arm.

This might be the type of comment people mean though - if you take his comment about the proprietor as being motivated by gender bias instead of just "Wayne says the first thing he thinks of" or simply "Wayne's an equal opportunity deadpan snarker". . . 

But then you also have to remember Wayne was already a bit gender fluid because of the way he uses disguise. SoS Ch 12:

  Reveal hidden contents

The green in front of the skyscraper felt right empty, now that so many people had left. He figured that would soon change, when Marasi returned with some more constables. She’d run off to fetch them, and give a report. That meant Wayne was the sole officer of lawkeepin’ in the vicinity. A frightening thought.

“I’ve got one more question for you,” Wayne said to the woman.

“Yes, officer?” she asked.

“Where’d you get those shoes?”

The woman blinked, then looked down. “Um … My shoes?”

“Yeah, your shoes,” Wayne said. “Look plenty comfortable, they do. Can never have too many pairs of black pumps. They go with rusting everything.”

She looked back at him. “You’re a man.”

“Sure am,” Wayne said. “Checked last time I pissed. The shoes?”

“Rousseau’s,” she said. “Third Octant, on Yomen Street.” She paused. “They were on sale last week.”

“Damn!” Wayne said. “That’s beautiful. Thanks. You’re free to go.”

She gave him that look that people seemed to give only to Wayne, the one he hadn’t quite figured. Ah well. He wrote down the name of the shop. If he had to wear those awful pumps from his disguise box one more time, he’d probably go insane.

This probably alters his personal perception on what is acceptable to say in a given situation.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I couldn't remember exactly what was said.

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

2 hours ago, Treamayne said:

Which evidence?

Curious because I never noticed any

See, I didn't specify anything because I couldn't think of anything.

I think you're right about him being

57 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

an equal opportunity deadpan snarker

 

[AonEne he/him in an enby way]

Wayne is absolutely sexist. I'll see if I can come back with more explanation in a bit, but I wanted to throw out something just so any lurkers wouldn't think there's only one opinion on this - he expressed sexist behaviors and it wasn't okay.

There is much more to sexism than "I hate women and think they're stupid". Sexism in the real world far more often looks like "women are great~, I love flirting with them, and they don't mind haha" or "the way I treat this person doesn't stem directly from them being a woman, but I'd be treating them differently or better if they were a man". The way he treats Marasi, Steris, Allriandre, Ranette, and women in general is motivated by several things, but sexism is interwoven. This is explicitly addressed in TLM (to varying peoples' levels of satisfaction...) but that does not mean it was not happening earlier. Brandon intentionally wrote him this way. 

[Koloss17 She/They]

16 minutes ago, AonEne said:

Wayne is absolutely sexist. I'll see if I can come back with more explanation in a bit, but I wanted to throw out something just so any lurkers wouldn't think there's only one opinion on this - he expressed sexist behaviors and it wasn't okay.

There is much more to sexism than "I hate women and think they're stupid". Sexism in the real world far more often looks like "women are great~, I love flirting with them, and they don't mind haha" or "the way I treat this person doesn't stem directly from them being a woman, but I'd be treating them differently or better if they were a man". The way he treats Marasi, Steris, Allriandre, Ranette, and women in general is motivated by several things, but sexism is interwoven. This is explicitly addressed in TLM (to varying peoples' levels of satisfaction...) but that does not mean it was not happening earlier. Brandon intentionally wrote him this way. 

100% to this. Wayne, while not explicitly sexist, has at least internal sexism. It is of course a product of the 1920s society the book is set in, but is still intentionally established. He sees women as dame's that need someone to help them along, and that that person is him. You can especially see this with his treatment of Ranette, with the blatant disregard for her clear non-interest in Wayne. This is a very common thing with sexism, that being that a woman doesn't really understand what they want, and that a man knows better.

Does he improve by the end of TLM? Yes, certainly. But the sexist undertones are an important aspect of his character, and was intentionally crafted as a flaw.

[Treamayne]

1 hour ago, Koloss17 said:

This is a very common thing with sexism, that being that a woman doesn't really understand what they want, and that a man knows better.

Should that not go both directions? People of a gender feel they know better than a person of a different gender what that person should want/need/do?

[Koloss17 She/They]

1 minute ago, Treamayne said:

Should that not go both directions? People of a gender feel they know better than a person of a different gender what that person should want/need/do?

well, if we're getting into the weeds, the problem comes from assuming that because you are a man, you would know better than them because they are a woman. The generalization that gender is the main determining factor is what's the sexist part, not the patronizing of the person in general.

If you want real world examples, look no further than any sort of women running for any sort of government office. There are a whole lot of questions regarding qualifications and capability of the person, which is really not questioned with as much fervor in male politicians. A very common talking point is "oh, this person is gaining office or getting voted for just because they are a woman, not because she is qualified for the job." That sort of thinking is indirectly stating that being a woman makes you inherently less likely to be qualified than men.

But I digress. Wayne has unconscious sexist tenancies, and it was probably put in there because Brandon wanted to accurately portray the time period he was emulating, and also kind of act as an example of a character with much less overt sexism in stories.

[Treamayne]

3 minutes ago, Koloss17 said:

well, if we're getting into the weeds, the problem comes from assuming that because you are a man, you would know better than them because they are a woman. The generalization that gender is the main determining factor is what's the sexist part, not the patronizing of the person in general.

If you want real world examples, look no further than any sort of women running for any sort of government office. There are a whole lot of questions regarding qualifications and capability of the person, which is really not questioned with as much fervor in male politicians. A very common talking point is "oh, this person is gaining office or getting voted for just because they are a woman, not because she is qualified for the job." That sort of thinking is indirectly stating that being a woman makes you inherently less likely to be qualified than men.

But I digress. Wayne has unconscious sexist tenancies, and it was probably put in there because Brandon wanted to accurately portray the time period he was emulating, and also kind of act as an example of a character with much less overt sexism in stories.

Not disputing that, I'm merely saying that sexism can happen from any gender to or upon or about any other gender.

It does not only flow male against female (though I would agree that is the most common). 

[Returned]

Just now, Treamayne said:

Not disputing that, I'm merely saying that sexism can happen from any gender to or upon or about any other gender.

It does not only flow male against female (though I would agree that is the most common). 

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth (specifically, I'm not attributing this view to Koloss17) but there is also a common perspective that social context is relevant to whether or not something is sexist or otherwise discriminatory.

For example, if Wayne were interested in men and treated a man the same way he treated Ranette, it wouldn't be sexist (though it would still be an imposition on that man, and would derive from Wayne's preferences on gender in a partner). If Wayne were bisexual and treated Ranette and a man both exactly the same way that he treats Ranette in-text, it would be harder to make the case that Wayne's behavior had the same gender-based motivation. But in a social context where there is sexist behavior generally (such as Koloss17 describes, though not limited to that), the effects of this hypothetical Wayne's treatment of Ranette would (or could) be different for her than his treatment of the man-- it would have (at least potentially) the same gender-based consequences for her as if Wayne had internalized sexist tendencies while those consequences wouldn't exist for the man either way. So even though (hypothetical) Wayne might have no gender bias at all, classifying his actions or behaviors can be (some say should be) based at least in part on the consequences of what he does, and if those fall unequally across genders then there is a gender-based aspect to characterizing him (and/or his actions) in terms of discrimination.

This is a different conception of sexism from "active or passive unequal treatment of others based on their gender", which is the other common description of sexism that I've seen. They aren't incompatible but aren't the same either, so it's easy for people to talk past each other when they focus on one versus the other. Some people strongly disagree on where the line is for "this thing someone did is sexist" compared with "this person is sexist because they did that thing".

I was a bit hesitant to post this but thought it might be worthwhile as I perceived (maybe wrongly) some of that aspect here. I won't be offended or upset if people choose to ignore this post .

[Treamayne]

5 minutes ago, Returned said:

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth

<snip>

I was a bit hesitant to post this but thought it might be worthwhile as I perceived (maybe wrongly) some of that aspect here. I won't be offended or upset if people choose to ignore this post .

It can be a difficult topic to discuss, because many aspects are subjective (and subjective in a manner that relates to a person's own biases - acknowledged or subconcious). The part that should not be subjective (in my mind) is the effect on the "audience*" because if that audience felt that cognitive/emotional reaction, then that is what they felt. If there was missing context, then that may change how they feel about the situation after the fact (which still does not change how they felt in the moment).

But I think labelling somebody (like Wayne, since that is the topic for the thread) needs to consider context and intention. Is Wayne sexist for his interactions with Ranette? Or, possibly, is it just that some (many/most) of those interactions seem sexist?

None of the readers is Wayne.

None of the readers is Ranette.

Can we really speak on their behalf? I think each of us can only say Wayne's <actions/words> in <context> seemed <state>. I also think that only Brandon can specifically say if he was purposely writing those baises into the character, or analyze what he wrote and acknowledge if he feels he did write those biases into the character. 

For each person, their perception and reaction is important to that person. However, is it not just as wrong to label somebody on your perception as it is for them to label you on a stereotype?

*Note: Where Audience can be one or more among: discriminatory target, witness to discrimination, reader, viewer, etc.  

[alder24]

4 hours ago, Koloss17 said:

This is a very common thing with sexism, that being that a woman doesn't really understand what they want, and that a man knows better.

2 hours ago, Treamayne said:

Should that not go both directions? People of a gender feel they know better than a person of a different gender what that person should want/need/do?

I would go a step further - there are people who just assume they know what's best for others, no matter their gender. I feel Wayne fits in that category. Just look how he treated Wax - he appeared in AoL out of nowhere and dragged him into another investigation, despite Wax refusing to engage. He was pushing Wax to marry Marasi instead of Steris, because in his opinion they fit better together. He dropped a water tower on Wax's wedding, risking the lives of many people just because he believed that this was good for Wax. The fact that he is a person who can get into the minds and roles of everyone probably contributes to this belief.

Sure, in those cases Wayne was 2 out of 3 times right. But that shows to me that he doesn't really care about gender, he just doesn't understand boundaries and personal space, he ignores them and often thinks he knows better what others should do. He also has this overwhelming desire to prove he is a good person, that he deserves redemption, which pushes him into the wrong direction.

I wouldn’t call Wayne a sexist, but sometimes he certainly behaves in a sexist way. Like when he jokes - he just likes to make fun of people, he likes sexual jokes. It only encourages him when Marasi blushes. I think his treatment of Ranette is a combination of all of those factors - he doesn't understand boundaries, he doesn't understand Ranette at all (he genuinely thinks Ranette shooting at him is a form of flirting) and lastly he thinks he knows better. His treatment of Allriandre is driven by his guilt and need for suffering, through which he feels better, not because of gender. He would behave in the exact same way if Allriandre was a man.

Ultimately I understand why some might call Wayne a sexist, his actions can lead to that conclusion, but I think his problem is just bigger than that.

Edited February 15 by alder24

[AonEne he/him in an enby way]

I think he certainly has more problems than the sexism, Brandon's talked about that and it's clear in the text, but I do count it as one of them. A person doesn't need to consciously care about gender to have internalized sexism and to do sexist things. Something can also be both sexist and wrong for other reasons. 

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

None of the readers is Wayne.

None of the readers is Ranette.

Can we really speak on their behalf? 

You don't have to be a fictional character to analyze things  

[Treamayne]

1 minute ago, AonEne said:

You don't have to be a fictional character to analyze things

I apologize for being unclear - I meant that when motive/influence counts we cannot determine for them what their motive for a behaviour might have been. 

Example:

Spoiler

Deployed to Afghanistan, we had a soldier "flinch" when a homosexual officer put his arm around his shoulder. The Warrent Officer labelled him a "homophobe" and caused all kinds of trouble. In reality, he was on the autism spectrum and just does not like being touched. But the "offended" party decided to assign a motive for the observed behaviour, and because he had the rank the soldier was reprimanded when those of us working with them both felt the reprimand was undeserved (or should have gone the other way - personal contact without permission is assault after all). 
 

All I am really trying to say is identifying a quality in an action is one thing (the action/statement is sexist).

Using that to label a person when the motive behind the action is unknown is something else (the person is sexist because of action/statement). 

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

4 hours ago, AonEne said:

Wayne is absolutely sexist. I'll see if I can come back with more explanation in a bit, but I wanted to throw out something just so any lurkers wouldn't think there's only one opinion on this - he expressed sexist behaviors and it wasn't okay.

There is much more to sexism than "I hate women and think they're stupid". Sexism in the real world far more often looks like "women are great~, I love flirting with them, and they don't mind haha" or "the way I treat this person doesn't stem directly from them being a woman, but I'd be treating them differently or better if they were a man". The way he treats Marasi, Steris, Allriandre, Ranette, and women in general is motivated by several things, but sexism is interwoven. This is explicitly addressed in TLM (to varying peoples' levels of satisfaction...) but that does not mean it was not happening earlier. Brandon intentionally wrote him this way. 

I'd really like to see some examples, not because I don't believe you, but because my mind is hitting a roadblock when I try to remember why I felt he was sexist. I do get the feeling it is a lot of actions like:

5 hours ago, AonEne said:

"women are great~, I love flirting with them, and they don't mind haha"

But I cannot for the life of me think of an instance.

 

14 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Deployed to Afghanistan, we had a soldier "flinch" when a homosexual officer put his arm around his shoulder. The Warrent Officer labelled him a "homophobe" and caused all kinds of trouble. In reality, he was on the autism spectrum and just does not like being touched. But the "offended" party decided to assign a motive for the observed behaviour, and because he had the rank the soldier was reprimanded when those of us working with them both felt the reprimand was undeserved (or should have gone the other way - personal contact without permission is assault after all). 

That's really awful to have happen, and I hate to straight up accuse Wayne, but I also consider myself rather unlikely to call something out as sexism/racism/etc. compared to most people.

There's also the following info from Brandon, who decides who Wayne is as a person.

Quote

 

Questioner

What was your inspiration for Wayne?

Brandon Sanderson

Wayne had a lot of inspirations... Obviously, there's some Mat Cauthon going on for me when I do Wayne, particularly the way that Mat would see the world differently from the that way he would act. The original inspiration for Wayne was a character who changed personalities based on which hat he wore. He was actually the lead in a Mistborn story I was writing, and he didn't work well without someone to play off of... Some characters work way better when they are surrounded by more normal people. Not gonna say anything about things like the Minion movie (which my children loved), but it's very hard to tell a story about everyone being crazy instead of having a framework of someone to keep it going in the right direction. So that was a big inspiration for Wayne.

The other big inspiration for Wayne was something I noticed about human nature, where I wanted to tell a story about a character who had some really deep-- Wayne should bother you. Like the way he treats Steris. And the way he treats Ranette. And the way he treats some of the people in his life should really bother you. And one of my goals with Wayne was to tell a story that mimics what I see in real life, where there are people I know and I love who also have this way about them that you realize they aren't quite-- grown-up's the wrong term... Like, all of us are the heroes in our own group of friends. We're all the hero of our story. We each have different things we're working on. And some of them are classic good storytelling things, like "I'm gonna learn to be more bold." Which is totally me. Totally something I need to work on. But some of them are "I treat people who aren't in my inner circle really poorly, especially if they're trying to get into my inner circle. And then when you're in my inner circle, I have a dysfunctional relationship with you a lot of time." And I thought I could only really do that with a character that you loved while you were really annoyed by them, because otherwise I feel like the character wouldn't work. Maybe I could do it a different way, but I really wanted to dig into that in these new Mistborn books, and Wayne was my vehicle for doing this.

Some kind of nebulous sort of writerly things going on there.

Skyward Seattle signing (Nov. 10, 2018)

 

Quote

Brandon Sanderson

So, I don't know how much I've talked about this, but there are two things going on with Wayne in regard to Steris.

The first is that Wayne is a highly instinctive person. He DOES think, and more than people give him credit for, but he judges a lot of what he does by what his gut says. I've known people like this and they can be extremely charming, but have more trouble articulating why they might make a certain decision--or why they don't like a particular person.

Wayne doesn't like Steris. She feels off to him, and his instincts say she's hiding something. Trouble is, his gut is misleading him in this case. Steris doesn't think and react like Wayne does, but it's not because she's hiding something--it's because she doesn't pick up on the same social cues that someone highly sociable like Wayne sees.

There's a second issue here, and that's Wayne's over-protectiveness. Wayne tends to lump people in his head into "my mates" and "those other folks." Once you're "in" with him, he'll do basically anything for you. You'll never find a more loyal friend. At the same time, it's hard to get "in" with him--and if he perceives someone as "stealing" someone from him, he gets very defensive, even mean.

He doesn't realize it, but his subconscious sees Steris as taking Wax away from him and--even more importantly--away from Lessie. He'd be belligerent toward anyone Wax started dating, but the fact that he gets lots of false positives off of Steris doesn't help one bit. If Wax/Marasi had worked out, he'd probably have been okay with it, for example.

General Reddit 2017 (July 26, 2017)

Just throwing those out there.

[Returned]

I think that a broader issue is that we often have to make assessments of things, and some assessments require, or at least imply, subsequent action, and that failure to act reads as (or is) tacit acceptance, which is (in at least some cases) unacceptable. If action is required and inaction unacceptable then it becomes very important to determine if something is a transgression, and if so how and why, and how much the transgression should be considered an isolated incident, a personal characteristic of the transgressor, and/or a societal failure. These are all important to determining what actions, behaviors, and people need a response from others and what that response should be. And it's a feature of reality that we never have complete information on much of anything, but sometimes we have to make a call.

If some things Wayne does seem sexist then it may be important to determine if they are sexist (including our functional definition of what constitutes sexism). If we determine, to the best of our ability, that those things are sexist, then we should not accept those actions as OK. I think that this is mostly uncontroversial (though I admit that "mostly" is doing a lot of work in that statement). Where people seem to become more incensed, from what I have seen, is when we move beyond describing an action or situation as sexist to describing a person as sexist as a consequence of that action or situation.

I, personally, feel that real people are complex enough that labelling one as anything with a moral valence or a summary judgment is often, at best, incomplete or premature, but I acknowledge that I am both in the minority on holding that opinion and also quite guilty of doing it anyways (it's often expedient, useful, and even correct, but that's not the same as it being right or appropriate; sometimes it is appropriate, but making that determination gets dicey pretty quickly). This is especially the case when the description is applied based on relatively little information-- how reliable is observing a single, one-minute conversation involving a person in providing a picture of that person that earns them a label? Sometimes it's enough (I'd be comfortable concluding that someone who says "women are fundamentally worse than men in every way" as a sexist, even though it's not impossible that person might be joking or quoting a line from something), but the less observation/information we have the more humble I think we should be in assigning those sorts of judgments and open to revising our opinions. Especially if there are consequences that could develop from labelling them or if we use it as a lens through which we consider everything else we learn about them.

Fictional characters are not that complex, since they exist only and exactly within the confines of their descriptions and actions on the page. We as readers mentally and emotionally fill in some gaps to interpret what we read, but that's a projection. An author explicitly describing something about their character is definitive, but otherwise I have a hard time concluding that a fictional character is anything other than precisely what they seem in the text. With some wiggle room for how the author tried to portray them, which may not be received by the reader as the author intended.

One final point that I think is relevant is the question of what we should do with someone who does sexist things or that we conclude is a sexist. The current American zeitgeist seems, to me, to be kind of all-or-nothing. I realize that a lot of people don't feel that way, but I get the impression that frequently the social consensus is something like: sexism is pretty bad (for example), and so if a person is sexist they can't be good, and so we can't or shouldn't like them or anything they do, etc. On the flip side, if we think that someone is good, or we like them or things they do, people can go to great lengths to deny a descriptor like "sexist".  I often see discussions which break down to one group saying "[X] is a bad thing, this person did it, and we shouldn't excuse it or pretend it never happened" while another group hears "[X] is a bad thing, this person did it, and so this person is bad and must be condemned in such a way that no one can ever miss it". The second group then responds with something like "this person is more than having done [X] and so it's wrong to make that the only thing anyone ever knows about them", and the first group hears "[X] isn't important enough to talk about, so we should let it slide without comment for this person and not really talk about it ever".

I appreciate at least some of how and why this has come about but I think that it is a mistake. People, real or fictional, aren't necessarily defined entirely by the very worst thing about them. Some descriptors can never change, and sometimes people can change so that they no longer apply. Sticking with Wayne, he's a murderer because he murdered someone (he was killed in the course of Wayne robbing him, which is felony murder if I remember my Law & Order episodes correctly). Wayne will always be a murderer because of that. Most readers will consider that a tragic mistake, and while a better Wayne wouldn't have done it he can still be OK to like and support even so. I think that the sexism charge is similar, even if we grant the strongest assertions of it from this thread: he's not necessarily anathema because of it, we can still like him overall despite that negative trait, and we can do those things while acknowledging that it's not great.

All that said, I do not see much in this thread so far to support agreeing with the claim "Wayne is sexist". Mostly people have just posited that "it's there", and that he harasses Ranette (which is undeniably bad of him). I'm not looking to change anyone's mind here (my first post in this thread was just my take on the text, and I have no complaint if people disagree), but if the support is generally "Wayne is self-centered with Ranette, has lots of flaws, and the whole vibe is sexist as is Northern Scadrian society" without more explication then I think that few people will be convinced, and that discussion will stagnate quickly.

(This post came out really long! I'll lean back in the thread from here, I don't want to monopolize or stifle discussion)