Restricting Gender Roles

[11thorderknight]

No, trust me I recognize all of it. It's just such a tedious list that not a lot of people are really interested in. Like how it'd take a massive amount of training to get young, 19 year old men to instantly obey the commands of a female lieutenant in combat. And how men are more likely to incompetently triage causalities if there are women involved because of our natural inclination to protect women. Or all the adultery that would be going on. Adultery, by the way, is a really, really big deal in the military and it will ruin your career in some cases. Or pregnancy. And rape accusations. Trust me. Rape would happen frequently - but not as frequently as false accusations would be thrown around.

Hygiene alone would be difficult. When I was in Afghanistan, I lived in a patrol base with about 50 other men. We crapped in bags and burned them. We didn't shower almost ever, and when we did it was by standing around naked dumping water bottles on ourselves. We pissed in a huge trench we dug in the ground, then boiled it a way by burning diesel fuel that we poured on it. We had no means to do laundry, either. If we had women with us, we would have required separate facilities for ALL of those things as well as separate sleeping areas. Women would have menstruation to deal with which, after I described my deployment to my wife, she assures me would be an enormous pain to deal with under the circumstances I described.

But you're right, Wonko. Though I recognize it, I don't care that some women are able to do the job. It simply isn't practical. Hence the point I made about, "Would women in the Infantry enhance our warfighting capabilities?" Again, the answer is no.

There needs to be some separation of gender roles because men and women are NOT equal. As a gender, we have each have our own strengths and weaknesses. As individuals, we have our own unique strengths and weaknesses. That's why, when discussing gender roles on the scale of societies, we need to look at the genders as a whole, not what the individuals of each gender are capable of and that's mostly what happens throughout history. There are always notable exceptions and I think they should be allowed and encourage - I don't think we should build our values as a society around those exceptions.

But my ultimate point was this: If you examine gender roles, it's easy to see WHY they exist. There's always a legitimate reason behind them. And I am SUPER excited about seeing the legitimate reasons for the gender roles on Roshar!

You're making the assumption that integrating women into the military would happen in the context of existing gender roles. And you're right in a sense; obviously, our gender roles are what they are, and a change in our military would happen in that context. But thinking more broadly, if we had a unisex military for any length of time, our gender roles as a society would necessarily be different because of that. For instance, there are societies where women do serve in the military, even in the front lines (Israel comes to mind, there may be others). Instead of wondering how you'd arrange separate ditches for men and women to piss in, maybe the question is "how would gender roles be different if men and women were forced to share such close quarters and piss in the same ditch?"

[hoser]

{sarcasm}

No, Alaxel is right.  That's also why people of color are not integrated into the armed services.  As is well established, people of color pissing in the same trenches would be offensive.  Likewise, people of nonstandard gender attractions are not allowed to serve, because we as a society will never be able to figure out how to manage the complicated situations that would ensue from people serving with other people they find attractive.  Oh wait, what year is this?  Never mind.

{/sarcasm}

Seriously though, I have never served{sarcasm} and so my opinion and knowledge of history are meaningless.{/sarcasm}.

[Crysanja]

when a desolation can kill 90% of the ppl, then each hand which can carry a (sword)spear is necessary to defend teh realm.

sure the standing army will take a beating before everyone goes to war, but it will happen.

 

keep in mind about the times we are speaking, they force conscript farmers for the army, fighting with whatever they find to use as a weapon.

 

 

with slavery and brutal punishments as they are there. do you think lots of soldiers will risk rape and turture their own?

 

 

im sure they dont care as much about modisty as we are today - and they dont have to burn their leavings, they might just burry them.

 

 

this is not just about the military,

with lots of ppl dieing everyone needs to pick up the tasks which arent done without help of the other gender.

 

the knight radiant are comming back, i guess nearly everyone in the books thinks they are just worriors.

but i guess about 50% of the ppl able to bound spren will be women.

why shouldnt thouse use their powers for combat?

[+eveorjoy]

the knight radiant are comming back, i guess nearly everyone in the books thinks they are just worriors.

but i guess about 50% of the ppl able to bound spren will be women.

why shouldnt thouse use their powers for combat?

 

50% of the Heralds were women as well. And each got a big old blade to fight with.

Edited January 20, 2014 by eveorjoy

[Wonko the Sane]

No, trust me I recognize all of it. It's just such a tedious list that not a lot of people are really interested in. Like how it'd take a massive amount of training to get young, 19 year old men to instantly obey the commands of a female lieutenant in combat. And how men are more likely to incompetently triage causalities if there are women involved because of our natural inclination to protect women. Or all the adultery that would be going on. Adultery, by the way, is a really, really big deal in the military and it will ruin your career in some cases. Or pregnancy. And rape accusations. Trust me. Rape would happen frequently - but not as frequently as false accusations would be thrown around.

Hygiene alone would be difficult. When I was in Afghanistan, I lived in a patrol base with about 50 other men. We crapped in bags and burned them. We didn't shower almost ever, and when we did it was by standing around naked dumping water bottles on ourselves. We pissed in a huge trench we dug in the ground, then boiled it a way by burning diesel fuel that we poured on it. We had no means to do laundry, either. If we had women with us, we would have required separate facilities for ALL of those things as well as separate sleeping areas. Women would have menstruation to deal with which, after I described my deployment to my wife, she assures me would be an enormous pain to deal with under the circumstances I described.

But you're right, Wonko. Though I recognize it, I don't care that some women are able to do the job. It simply isn't practical. Hence the point I made about, "Would women in the Infantry enhance our warfighting capabilities?" Again, the answer is no.

There needs to be some separation of gender roles because men and women are NOT equal. As a gender, we have each have our own strengths and weaknesses. As individuals, we have our own unique strengths and weaknesses. That's why, when discussing gender roles on the scale of societies, we need to look at the genders as a whole, not what the individuals of each gender are capable of and that's mostly what happens throughout history. There are always notable exceptions and I think they should be allowed and encourage - I don't think we should build our values as a society around those exceptions.

But my ultimate point was this: If you examine gender roles, it's easy to see WHY they exist. There's always a legitimate reason behind them. And I am SUPER excited about seeing the legitimate reasons for the gender roles on Roshar!

It's true that gender roles start for a reason. There was a point in human history where they were a necessary structure. However, at this point in time, they have become outdated and obsolete. You don't seem to understand that. The difficulty with integrating women into the infantry had absolutely nothing to do with women's aptitude as warfighters - individually or collectively. In truth, an all-woman infantry would function at nearly an identical level to the all-male model. The complications arise when you try to construct an infantry out of two different genders.

No matter how revolutionary a policy you introduce, men will not be comfortable being naked in front of women. After a time, perhaps, this will be alleviated somewhat, but this will only be after several decades of a severe drop in efficiency.

The reason the army was hesitant to introduce women into the infantry was not that they were somehow influenced by a sexist mindset; it was that - due to an outdated social dynamic - men and women were highly prone to treat each other differently. This different treatment was completely unwarranted, but the army could not deny its existence. The question was, practically speaking, could the military successfully integrate women into the infantry without taking a significant hit to their overall efficiency.

Moreover, this argument is nearly totally irrelevant, as the gender dynamic on Roshar is radically different from that on Earth. The comparisons are minimal at best, and only really apply to modern-day Vorin cultures. I agree with others here in the assertion that the presence of women among the Heralds and the Knights Radiant makes it clear that society has not always been this way, and I believe that, as we see these institutions gradually return to the world, society will be forced to abandon its preconceptions by a nondiscriminatory magic system, similar to what we saw with female mistborn on Scadrial.

[Ararder]

Personally, I am against the breaking of gender roles. 

wat

 

just

 

wat.

[el_warko]

This issue highlights one of my favorite aspects of Brandon's writing. He never pushes any opinion into his work; he merely presents the world as he sees it - or at least, as his characters see it.

 

Really glad you clarified that, reading Mistborn at the moment and while Kelsier, Vin et. al. have cause and are arguably justified, murderous super assassin is a pretty bleak world view.

[Guest Alaxel]

wat

just

wat.

Okay, this is probably going to sound insensitive because it isn't on board with the trendy be-as-open-minded-as-you-can-possibly-be bandwagon. But my thoughts are sincere and well intentioned. So I'll treat your post as a polite request for clarification.

This may come as a shock to you, but men and women, are NOT the same. We are NOT equal. We each have strengths and weaknesses, and gender roles are a result of maximizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses. Now, before you get too upset with my declaration that genders are not equal, let me clarify two points. One: I'm referring to Men and Women as genders. I know that there are some women who are stronger than men and some men who are more nurturing than women. I'm not talking about the exceptions, I'm talking about two very large demographics. Two: I'm not claiming that one is superior to the other. I just said "we each have strengths and weaknesses." We each fill a vital role. No, we're not equal and thank goodness that we aren't! However, you should treat everyone with a universal minimum amount of civility and respect - that is the 'equality' that most people commonly think of.

With that in mind, what is wrong with gender roles? People specialize in every other aspect of their lives, why not play to your strengths biologically? I'm not saying anyone should be denied the opportunity to break gender roles if they really want to...it's just that the desire to do so seems strange to me. If you're the world's best swimmer, why would you compete in tennis if you're terrible at it. Just because you can?

[Ararder]

Okay, this is probably going to sound insensitive because it isn't on board with the trendy be-as-open-minded-as-you-can-possibly-be bandwagon. But my thoughts are sincere and well intentioned. So I'll treat your post as a polite request for clarification.

This may come as a shock to you, but men and women, are NOT the same. We are NOT equal. We each have strengths and weaknesses, and gender roles are a result of maximizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses. Now, before you get too upset with my declaration that genders are not equal, let me clarify two points. One: I'm referring to Men and Women as genders. I know that there are some women who are stronger than men and some men who are more nurturing than women. I'm not talking about the exceptions, I'm talking about two very large demographics. Two: I'm not claiming that one is superior to the other. I just said "we each have strengths and weaknesses." We each fill a vital role. No, we're not equal and thank goodness that we aren't! However, you should treat everyone with a universal minimum amount of civility and respect - that is the 'equality' that most people commonly think of.

With that in mind, what is wrong with gender roles? People specialize in every other aspect of their lives, why not play to your strengths biologically? I'm not saying anyone should be denied the opportunity to break gender roles if they really want to...it's just that the desire to do so seems strange to me. If you're the world's best swimmer, why would you compete in tennis if you're terrible at it. Just because you can?

 

No they are definetly not the result of that. Most of the gender roles are part of an old culture and mindset we dont have today.

I think people that fight gender roles are against the restricting parts of them, also, categorizing humanity after these two demographics really havn't worked out well. Considering that more and more research point to the incredible impact nature has on forming individuals, gender roles are not effective in specializing and effectivising. Rather they limit our potential. It's a hard subject to discuss, and i find it hard to express my thoughts clearly in English. I think you are basing way to much of your mindset on the fact that our biology impacts as much as you think it does.

Everyone is different - i definitely agree here with you, but dividing the population based on gender just isnt smart and is not working out for us.

[Shardlet]

In any case of the matter, there is a forthcoming desolation.  Something Roshar hasn't dealt with for the last 4500 years.  I feel fairly certain that they are going to have to face the gender roles, social structures, and political structures that have developed over the last 4.5 millenia.  Entrenched ideas and ways of life are going to have to be seriously reevaluated.  We already see the beginnings of that with Kaladin's current rank and influence.  We will see it come up with women fighting.  We may see it come up with male literacy.  We will likely see it come up with international relations as hostile nations (like Alethkar and Jah Keved) must eventually join together to fight a common foe.  Brandon has strongly sowed the seeds for political, gender, and social upheaval on Roshar.  Much more so than in any of his other works.  The closest would be Skaa and Nobility on Scadrial and that doesn't hold a candle to what he has set up on Roshar.

 

In the Vorin gender roles specifically, I can't imagine Brandon leaving this as background.  While the gender roles are not necessarily unequal (in that while the men rule and fight, the women administrate, think, and create), they are so strongly defined and divided (they even eat different foods) that they must be directly addressed.  He has made them too strong of a feature to leave them as worldbuilding. 

 

We will see these issues addressed.  Some will play out on an individual level and others will be met on a larger stage.  Some will be played out as right or wrong.  While others will likely be played out as necessary or expedient changes to fit circumstances.

[Awesomeness Summoned]

No they are definetly not the result of that.

Yes, historically, they were a result of that. For the vast majority of human history, life sucked. It required an enormous amount of time to acquire food, prepare food, raise children, and take care of the home. It was necessity for survival that the family and community as a whole be divided into roles based their strengths and weaknesses. Dividing by gender worked out extremely well for us when it was needed.

 

You are correct, though, that those roles became parts of the cultures and as a result persisted even after many become unnecessary. Modern technology and society has made it so that most of those tasks can be performed equally by either gender so i'll agree with you that many persisting gender roles are unproductive and unfairly limiting. But there still are differences and I'll agree with Alexal that we sometimes go overboard in trying to make things "fair" and ignore reality.

 

Regardless of how much nature effects development, a woman is never going to legitimately play in the NFL and a man is not going to give birth without some serious genetic and drug intervention. Making an attempt to rectify that biological "unfairness" would be a waste of time and resources.

 

So, while we should make every attempt to ensure someone isn't limited based on roles that are no longer valid, there are still differences between the genders and in some cases trying to make things completely equal can be just as counterproductive. 

[Guest Alaxel]

No they are definetly not the result of that. Most of the gender roles are part of an old culture and mindset we dont have today.

I think people that fight gender roles are against the restricting parts of them, also, categorizing humanity after these two demographics really havn't worked out well. Considering that more and more research point to the incredible impact nature has on forming individuals, gender roles are not effective in specializing and effectivising. Rather they limit our potential. It's a hard subject to discuss, and i find it hard to express my thoughts clearly in English. I think you are basing way to much of your mindset on the fact that our biology impacts as much as you think it does.

Everyone is different - i definitely agree here with you, but dividing the population based on gender just isnt smart and is not working out for us.

You're right, I place a lot of importance on the biological aspect of it. And while our environment influences our development, our biology is what determines how we react to that environment. And though men and women can perform many of the same jobs, there are fundemental differences in the each gender that can't just be ignored. Like I said, I don't think anyone should be denied an opportunity because of their gender - but I ESPECIALLY don't think anyone should be given extra opportunities based on their gender, either. For example, if I score slightly higher on an police examination than a woman does, she is much more likely to get the job than I am, even though she's slightly less qualified, because the department has a quota to fill. That isn't fair to me and it even diminishes the value of her accomplishment. I've even heard of people demanding that the physical requirements to be a firefighter be reduced to enable more women to pass. Really? In a profession where physical strength could save someone's life, people want to reduce the rewuirements? It isn't like we have Shardplate here on Earth...

No. Instead of being ashamed of our differences, we should celebrate them! Instead of ruducing the standard of excellence to some lowest common denomenator, people should do what they're best at. Pretending we're all the same is a sickening idea.

But the whole point I've been stressing all along is that gender roles didn't just poof out of nowhere. There are logical reasons why men are warriors and women are nurturers - and I'm very excited to see the Roharan reasons behind their peculiar gender roles.

EDIT: I just imagined an Alethi prison where the dominate man makes his cellmate cover his safehand hahaha

Edited January 23, 2014 by Alaxel

[Kurkistan]

<Snip>

 

But the whole point I've been stressing all along is that gender roles didn't just poof out of nowhere. There are logical reasons why men are warriors and women are nurturers - and I'm very excited to see the Roharan reasons behind their peculiar gender roles.

 

*Sidesteps gender-role debate. I am not getting into this.*

 

Hark! For I am Kurkistan, Deliverer of WoB. This may partially answer your question.

 

Source:

 

JON

My burning question for Brandon is did I miss the explanation, world building moment or historical gem that explains why women have a safe hand and why they must keep it covered?

 

BRANDON SANDERSON (GOODREADS)

No, you haven't missed it. People have asked about this. There will be more explanation in-world as it comes along, but it's for much the same reason that in some cultures in our world you don't show people the bottoms of your feet, and in other cultures showing the top of your head is offensive. It's part of what has grown out of the Vorin culture, and there are reasons for it. One of them has to do with a famous book written by an artist who claimed that true feminine pursuits and arts were those that could be performed with one hand, while masculine arts were those performed with two hands, in a way associating delicacy with women and brute force with men. Some people in Roshar disagree with this idea, but the custom has grown out of that foundational work on masculine and feminine arts. That's where that came from. One aspect of this is that women began to paint one-handed and do things one-handed in upper, higher society. You'll notice that the lower classes don't pay a lot of attention to it—they'll just wear a glove.

 

As a student of human nature and of anthropology, it fascinates me how some cultures create one thing as being taboo whereas in another culture, the same thing can be very much not taboo. It's just what we do as people.

 

There's more to it than that, but that will stand for now.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Kurkistan

[Guest Alaxel]

Awesome! I wonder why their food is flavored differently? Brute force to men and delicacy to women makes sense to me...but why is their food different?? I admit, it boggles me.

[hoser]

I fixed it for ya.

*Sidesteps gender-role debate. I am not getting into this.*

 

Hark! For I am Kurkistan, HeraldDeliverer of WoBrandon. This may partially answer your question.

 

Source:

[digitalbusker]

Awesome! I wonder why their food is flavored differently? Brute force to men and delicacy to women makes sense to me...but why is their food different?? I admit, it boggles me.

I too have no interest in stepping into a debate about the origin and utility of traditional gender roles, but as a thought exercise, what do you think somebody in Alethkar would say were the biological reasons for women's food to be spiced differently from men's?

[Shardlet]

That is why the food aspect is so intriguing.  Warfare could readily be left up to the men due to more suitable physical capability.  Meanwhile, scholarly pursuits could readily be left to the women so that the men are free to study and practice the arts of war.  Similarly with other pursuits being divided largely upon physical and mental lines.  But with food, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why women would be relegated to sweeter foods and men to spicier foods.  Did it start with a greater predominance of sweeter foods being preferred by women and spicier foods being preferred by men and then evolve into concepts of masculine and feminine foods followed by cementing this concepts as a result of an already rigidly defined masculine and feminine social structure?

Edited January 23, 2014 by Shardlet

[11thorderknight]

Awesome! I wonder why their food is flavored differently? Brute force to men and delicacy to women makes sense to me...but why is their food different?? I admit, it boggles me.

 

I think where Brandon is going with the Vorin gender roles is to take something that has a very rational basis in nature (i.e. gender roles based on biological realities and life on a harsh, inhospitable world at a relatively low level of technology) and show how human society and culture can take those things and extrapolate them to extremes that to us seem very bizarre, and how different cultures can end up in very different places based on the same biological facts.

 

Again, it bears pointing out that similar things have happened in the real world. For instance, there are many indigenous cultures where it's perfectly normal for women to go about bare-chested in public, and then there are cultures where women wear burkas. I think the safehand concept is Brandon's way of saying "these things are all arbitrary". As for literacy, it serves to point out how very intelligent people can be illiterate (though I'd argue that the men's glyphs fulfill most of the functions of a written language).

 

As for warfare - as has been pointed out, there are obviously reasons why men are soldiers and women aren't, at least in pre-gun societies. So I bet what we'll see is that the regular soldiers will be almost exclusively men, but that female Surgebinders will certainly learn to fight, and given the magnitude of Stormlight's enhancements, will be just as effective at it as the men. This is basically foreshadowed for Shallan, when she is disappointed at being told that most Radiants weren't professional warriors.

[Awesomeness Summoned]

That is why the food aspect is so intriguing.  Warfare could readily be left up to the men due to more suitable physical capability.  Meanwhile, scholarly pursuits could readily be left to the women so that the men are free to study and practice the arts of war.  Similarly with other pursuits being divided largely upon physical and mental lines.  But with food, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why women would be relegated to sweeter foods and men to spicier foods.  Did it start with a greater predominance of sweeter foods being preferred by women and spicier foods being preferred by men and then evolve into concepts of masculine and feminine foods followed by cementing this concepts as a result of an already rigidly defined masculine and feminine social structure?

In almost every culture on earth there is the idea that certain foods benefit or enhancing various mental and physical abilities. Perhaps they have similar beliefs in Alethkar. Some foods are associated with physical strength and prowess on the battlefield while others are associated with mental enhancement. Over time those foods became gender specific based on the attribute they enhance.

[Guest Alaxel]

In almost every culture on earth there is the idea that certain foods benefit or enhancing various mental and physical abilities. Perhaps they have similar beliefs in Alethkar. Some foods are associated with physical strength and prowess on the battlefield while others are associated with mental enhancement. Over time those foods became gender specific based on the attribute they enhance.

I like this. I'd like to hear an Ardent discuss it, too. I bet there is relatively no complexity to the flavors in men's food; that it's just powerfully spicy or garlicky etc. Women's food probably has a very delicate balance of flavors that one might find in a fine restaurant. Steaks on the grill vs mushroom risotto if you will.

ProTip: go to a restaurant so fancy that you feel uncomfortable being there; like even the other guests can tell you're out of your element. Order the fanciest steak and ask leading questions to get the waiter to describe it to you. When it arrives, ask for ketchup. The look on their faces is worth it every time.

[+eveorjoy]

Sweet foods tend to be comfort foods, something to eat while relaxing and contemplating scholarly pursuits. Spicy food cause pain and can leave a person energized. So maybe that has something to do with sweet food for women and spicy for men. Personally I love spicy foods, so I think I would need to become ardent on Roshar. I want my hot wings.

[JoeAgain]

Trust me. Rape would happen frequently - but not as frequently as false accusations would be thrown around.

 

The idea that women are more likely to put themselves through a very invasive and shaming process just to get petty revenge on innocent men than they are to actually be attacked is wrong, insulting, shameful, and dangerous. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes, and any attempt to denigrate or discourage victims of this crime should not be left unchallenged--or worse, up-voted--on a serious forum of any kind.

[Guest Alaxel]

The idea that women are more likely to put themselves through a very invasive and shaming process just to get petty revenge on innocent men than they are to actually be attacked is wrong, insulting, shameful, and dangerous. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes, and any attempt to denigrate or discourage victims of this crime should not be left unchallenged--or worse, up-voted--on a serious forum of any kind.

I'm sorry, that was a hasty generalization on my part. I should have said, "Sexual Harassment." They're both almost equally despicable in my opinion - but trust me, it would happen. I was there. I've seen it.

[Shardlet]

The idea that women are more likely to put themselves through a very invasive and shaming process just to get petty revenge on innocent men than they are to actually be attacked is wrong, insulting, shameful, and dangerous. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes, and any attempt to denigrate or discourage victims of this crime should not be left unchallenged--or worse, up-voted--on a serious forum of any kind.

 

While most of what you say is accurate, it does actually happen (I imagine rather rarely) that a woman falsely accuses a man of raping her.  One example I can think of off the top of my head is the case of the Duke lacrosse team incident a few years back. 

 

That said, I think Alaxel is incorrect.  I strongly suspect that actual incidents would far outnumber false accusations.  I would also disagree with him that sexual harassment is equally bad as rape.  For all of how horrible sexual harassment is, rape is far far worse.  The damage is far more severe and enduring.

[Crysanja]

i dont do any martial arts - maybe someone doing some fancing could give insight to the performence of women?

would say they do just fine.

 

usualy in sige situations, and in normal combat too, ppl with very bad equipment are used to weaken/tire the enemy.

i dont see much difference there between women and men.

 

as for combat, guess many women can do just fine with bows.

 

 

---

 

hmm the difference in food is realy odd i agree and that ardents dont even need to keep thouse.

kind of shows that its just Vorin sillyness?

 

usualy the ruls for the pirsthood are much more strict then for populance.

but here it seems they have less rules and limitations - major ones.