Wayne's sexist?

[Koloss17 She/They]

I’m right there with ya @Returned. Is Wayne sexist? Maybe. Is he self centered and doesn’t respect boundaries? Certainly. Does that make him a bad person? I wouldn’t say so. He’s a flawed character, and that’s a good thing. Personally, he’s one of my faves. A silly guy that has issues. 
 
Does the fact that I like his character mean that I have to agree with all of his actions and personality traits? Of course not. Personally, I like that he has those traits, and I appreciate that he’s problematic. And I like that Brandon is careful to address that he is problematic. Fictional characters have that luxury where real people don’t. Fictional characters’ beliefs are stemmed directly from a real person, and in this case Brandon has established those personality traits as flaws, not good qualities. Wayne, sexist or not, is a little guy, and I appreciate how Sanderson built him.

[Duxredux he/him]

There's a number of ways to look at this thread, and I'll go way back to the original to address the writerly question from @Thaidakar the Ghostblood. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were hoping to get a better sense of what constitutes sexism and what makes a character sexist as a writer so as to better avoid making a character sexist (at least unintentionally), right? Best advice I can give is to give your writing to a variety of alpha readers who are not like you and see their response. Now if the core worry is coming off as a sexist author, that's actually a different can of worms, and I'll refer you to Writing Excuses. I think they refer to this as "Writing the Other" which is to say writing a character who isn't like you, be it gender, race, culture, etc. I think the first time they covered it back when Brandon was on the team was this episode. There's a common progression when writing characters unlike you that authors often follow.

Let's see if I remember it right...

• First level is that you either don't have the Other in the story or objectify them within the context of the plot (there's a princess 'cuz the story is about the hero saving the princess).
• Second level is recognizing this and trying to put them in the story, but because you don't want to accidentally be derogatory you make them awesome, which Brandon calls the paragon. They're above reproach, but really the goal is to have representation in the book and the character doesn't actually do anything other than make an awesome cameo. The example Brandon gave was of soldier games where a bunch of white muscley guys are fighting other white muscley guys and then in a scripted scene they are losing and then the black muscley guy (who is awesome, everyone love him) breaks through the wall dual-wielding machine guns and mows down the enemy. They give each other high fives and black muscley guy drives off into the sunset never to be seen again.
• Third level is making them a significant character with plot relevance but they don't have significant flaws or are acting as a foil to the main character (likely one that you associate more with as an author because it's easier to write similar to your own viewpoint) and will call out the flaws of the main character to try to reduce the overall ___ist flaws in the story by calling them out as problematic. They are an active participant in the story, but are lacking depth because the author is afraid of writing flaws into the Other and getting it wrong.
• Fourth level is to give the Other a full and participating role in the story with their own flaws, character arc, community, and to basically stand as their own person separate from what you need them to do as an author. It takes a lot of work and feedback to get it right, and I have no further advice because I haven't written a cohesive original story of any quality whatsoever.

Go through the others if you want more specifics, examples, and practice exercises.

 

Back to the rest of the thread, it feels like there's a couple of goals that might be at cross purposes, and I'll list them off as ways to look at this thread in no particular order. 

• Discussing if Wayne is sexist
• Discussing if Wayne does sexist things
• What constitutes sexist actions or behavior
• Worry that minimization of sexist discussion makes it more likely to be swept under the rug outside of the forum

I'll note here that I don't think that within the context of the thread surrounding sexism that anyone is implying that anything Wayne does whatsoever should be modeled, mimicked, or given any approval whatsoever.

This is my personal view, and I'm okay if it needs work or other people disagree, but I think that learning to understand the world and in particular how other people are different from you is simply a learning curve and some people choose to keep learning and some people stop. I'm not saying to stop looking for discrimination, micro-aggressions, or when people are being marginalized, but that at the core it's about people deciding to observe and learn more about people who are different from themselves, be it an individual, a gender, or a culture, and then treating them how they would like to be treated. 

Now this might be oversharing, so I'll put it in a spoiler box, but thinking about it I think I've gone through a similar progression as the four steps to writing the other as given above.

Spoiler

I'm the youngest boy in my family, growing up I played with my older brother, and largely sent to play with children who were also boys, whereas my older sister was mistaken for my mother at age 10 because of how she scolded me in public, so that probably tells you why I sometimes just lump her in with my mom in my head even now. Stage one of the progression, I either didn't know the differences, or didn't realize that girls other than moms were different from me.

After hitting puberty, I became aware that yes, girls were different but in many ways that was still concealed to me (or honestly I was too nervous or embarrassed to really ask). I would say that I was sexist, but that's because I put girls on a pedestal and generally treated them much better than I did boys including myself. Part of being a gentleman is holding open doors and walking on the side of the road closest to the cars so that if you and the girl get splashed, the guy takes the brunt, right? Stage 2, they were a paragon in my mind, and things were simpler if I just assumed that they were awesome.

Stage 3 was becoming friends more and more with girls and learning that yes, they were different and thought differently. In general, if they tell you something you ought to do or call you out on it, then as they are part of living life, it's probably smart to listen and alter behavior if a girl calls a guy insensitive or rude.

Stage 4 as I hope I am in, is recognizing the challenges specific to being a girl that I have never had to deal with because if I don't understand those challenges then it's really hard for me to understand why girls do what they do, acknowledging their flaws, and then learning how to be supportive. In particular I'm talking about my wife, and learning how to support her in the things she finds difficult in the same way that I really do need her to support me. It's been oddly fascinating to me to talk with her about our views on the differences between guys and girls, like how they fight (how the guys beat each other up and become best friends trope developed), why girls go to the bathroom in convoys, and other details that often aren't shared because they aren't particularly relevant.

 

Unsurprisingly, I've worked hard at this with regards to my wife, and I don't claim to be an expert in other scenarios or even that I'm perfect at knowing my wife. In general, it feels like not becoming "___ist" is about recognizing your own origins and degree of understanding of circumstances that are not your own and working to expand that understanding. This is on every scale and axis, as I can rightly say that I don't know enough about Azerbaijan to pull a random country out of a hat. On the author scale of understanding I'm at a one, and I don't really feel a need to expand that right now because it's not immediately relevant and when it becomes so by actual close interactions with people or objects from Azerbaijan, then I can learn from those interactions. From an inclusion standpoint, I can't write anything to include someone from Azerbaijan.

So... my take is that if you feel like you need to get better at spotting the other and not make subconscious and or broadly incorrect assumptions about people, then it's a matter of putting in the work to learn and update your understanding. Calling someone out for being sexist tells that there is an issue, but general behavior modification "watch what you say" doesn't hit the root of why that "___ist" behavior exists in the first place. There has to be an internal desire to understand and perceive viewpoints outside of themselves, which is why reading literature written by people different from myself is more effective for me then looking up how not to be ___ist.

Wayne is fascinating and I've debated writing one of my essays on him for a while, but I haven't felt sure I was doing it well. For Wayne, it feels like there's this weird dichotomy of believing that other people, particularly his "posse" are better people than he is, but then having to doubt those people when they see anything worth while in him at all. Like... "obviously you're better than me, you're not a bloody murderer, so how can you so consistently be wrong about not thinking I deserve to be shot?" I don't think he's a masochist, in that I don't think he actually derives pleasure from pain, but... more like a sense of justice has been served indirectly every time he gets blown up or shot and that he deserves it in some way. In terms of his really inappropriate behavior, it feels like he's reinforcing in the minds of his friends that he really isn't a good person, shouldn't be trusted with anything moral so that they can either punish him or make sure he doesn't get worse, this reinforcement required because he is so incredibly good at disguises. He's a master at appearing what he isn't... except the businessmen, beggar, guard, scientist, elder lady, etc. persona he adopts didn't shoot a little girl's daddy. For someone who has incredible control, can alter his mannerisms, vocal patterns, mental patterns, and could probably disappear and live a new life like a kandra if he wanted to, the bawdy drunk we think of as typical Wayne is in some ways equally a show, though he may not think of it as such. I think he makes prejudice, classist, sexist, etc. remarks intentionally to remind people that he isn't a good man right up until the end, and because it was coming from Wayne it should be discounted anyway. So... is Wayne sexist? I think he was anti-Wayne/murderers more than anything else and his other vices are reinforcements to how much he hates himself and wants so hard to be a better man and prove that it really isn't just an act.

[Colors]

Sexism is a spectrum. He says some things that could be construed as mildly sexist, but I don't think it's a core facet of who he is. He'd be on the lighter end of the spectrum.

Edited February 18, 2024 by Colors