Female Shardbearers

[Toaster Retribution]

So, I know that we already have female Radiants (Shallan, Jasnah, Lift) but do you guys think we will get a female Shardbearer, without Surges? 

[Glamdring804]

We already have. Her name is Eshonai

[Oversleep]

12 minutes ago, Chull #445 said:

So, I know that we already have female Radiants (Shallan, Jasnah, Lift) but do you guys think we will get a female Shardbearer, without Surges? 

That would require destruction or a very, very significant change in the vorin society system (the male/female division of arts). Of course, we have female Radiants which are Shardbearers so that may open up a possibility.

[Calderis]

40 minutes ago, Chull #445 said:

So, I know that we already have female Radiants (Shallan, Jasnah, Lift) but do you guys think we will get a female Shardbearer, without Surges? 

We've already seen one. It's just not really allowed openly because of the Vorin restrictions on gender roles. 

The assassin Jasnah hires in the WoR Prologue, Liss A.K.A The Weeper, gouges out the eyes of her victims to hide they've been killed with a Shardblade. 

[Toaster Retribution]

13 hours ago, Glamdring804 said:

We already have. Her name is Eshonai

That is true. I guess I forgot her for some reason.

Oh, and @Calderis mentioned Liss too. While I forgot her as well, we dont really know wether she is a full Shardbearer, or only owns the Blade (my bet would be only the blade).

[+hwiles]

This may be sort of knitpicky, but we've only seen Eshonai as femalen, not female; IE: we've never seen mate-form Eshonai.  I'll concede that she probably does still identify as, and count as, a woman, but she isn't technically "female," as was OP's question.  

[Calderis]

4 hours ago, Chull #445 said:

That is true. I guess I forgot her for some reason.

Oh, and @Calderis mentioned Liss too. While I forgot her as well, we dont really know wether she is a full Shardbearer, or only owns the Blade (my bet would be only the blade).

As far as a full Shardbearer goes I just don't think we'll see it in the first half of the series. At least not in the main narrative. The Vorin gender roles are just too strict. 

The back half may be different though. The return of the Radiants and the devastation of the Everstorm are bound to make everyone fight, and traditions are often thrown aside for the sake of survival. 

[The One Who Connects]

5 hours ago, Chull #445 said:

While I forgot her as well, we don't really know whether she is a full Shardbearer, or only owns the Blade (my bet would be only the blade).

Vorin use the term Shardbearer as a blanket. Plate only, Blade only, Both... still considered a Shardbearer.

If you specifically want a "Full Shardbearer," I... don't really know. We know old KR were offered it, but I don't think Shallan, Jasnah or Lift would really be the type to wear it.

[Calderis]

5 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

Lift would really be the type to wear it.

As long as she can still be awesome, I can totally see Lift wearing it. She'd probably slide on rough terrain just because she could. 

[Rasarr]

I'm guessing you'd see woman Shardbearers in the west of Roshar - remember, the Vorin society and it's divisions between sexes only apply to the eastern part of the continent. We see a female guard captain in Edgedancer, so there are probably some female Shardbearers on the local lords' payroll as well.

[Calderis]

6 minutes ago, Rasarr said:

I'm guessing you'd see woman Shardbearers in the west of Roshar - remember, the Vorin society and it's divisions between sexes only apply to the eastern part of the continent. We see a female guard captain in Edgedancer, so there are probably some female Shardbearers on the local lords' payroll as well.

Agreed. That's why I mentioned the main narrative. Obviously this could change but for the first few books we've been centered in the east, subsumed in Vorin culture. If we head west, I think it's much more likely. Although Shardbearers in general will become much rarer outside of Alethkar and Jah Keved  

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calderis

[Weltall]

Technically we could see non-Radiant female 'full' Shardbearers even in the Vorin-dominated eastern half of the continent in a future book. For example, it's always possible that the Ghostbloods or agents of the Diagram could have a full set of shards used by a woman; the former have non-Rosharans and so aren't really bound by Vorin gender roles and who knows what they've got up their sleeves? For the latter, Mr. T is clearly willing to ignore cultural norms for what he sees as the 'greater good' so he or others following the Diagram might not have a problem with a female Shardbearer and we already know they've got other hidden resources including Graves' set of Shards and a Soulcaster, so it's at least possible there's a female Diagramist out there with Shards just waiting to appear onstage.

[Shrimple]

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to have a full shard bearer who's female. But in Vorin dominated areas I think it would be more effective for a female to only have a shard blade. Nobody expects them to have shards at all. They would be more effective as Assassins, like we've seen with Liss.

[The One Who Connects]

14 minutes ago, Shrimple said:

But in Vorin dominated areas I think it would be more effective for a female to only have a shard blade. Nobody expects them to have shards at all

Consider how long Dalinar/Adolin thought Eshonai was male because they had never seen her without the helmet/heard her voice.

The common people will dismiss our female Shardbearer as another nobleman flaunting his power and stay out of the way. I see no reason why the "nobody expects them to have Shards" applies when nobody would know they were female in order to have those expectations. Pass through the town with a collection of military personnel(like the Diagrammists perhaps) and nothing is really out of place. Have our "Lord" stand-in don the suit for any public speaking, and both the common people and the reader would be fooled

[Necessary Eagle]

9 hours ago, hwiles said:

This may be sort of knitpicky, but we've only seen Eshonai as femalen, not female; IE: we've never seen mate-form Eshonai.  I'll concede that she probably does still identify as, and count as, a woman, but she isn't technically "female," as was OP's question.  

I was under the impression that "malen" and "femalen" only applied to dullform?

I'm going to have to go back and reread those interludes.

[The One Who Connects]

6 minutes ago, Necessary Eagle said:

I was under the impression that "malen" and "femalen" only applied to dullform?

I was thinking of it as Male and Female only applied to the forms capable of mating(Slaveform and Mateform) while Malen and Femalen applied to all the ones that couldn't mate, which is every other form that we know of.

[+hwiles]

15 minutes ago, Necessary Eagle said:

I was under the impression that "malen" and "femalen" only applied to dullform?

I'm going to have to go back and reread those interludes.

My understanding is that malen and femalen apply to everything that can't breed.  I'll leave the deep discussion of how gender is defined relative to sex and personal identity to the anthropologists, however, for the layman, the following breakdown should be good enough:

Is physiologically similar to human male, can't breed: Malen

Is physiologically similar to human male, can breed: Male

Is physiologically similar to human female, can't breed: Femalen

Is physiologically similar to human female, can breed: Female

Please note, this simplistic analysis would probably be offensive, or at least confusing, to an actual parshendi, if not as a matter of principle, then at least because it completely ignores their rich cultural heritage. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by hwiles

[Necessary Eagle]

That does make sense.

[Oversleep]

@hwiles, the thing is every form can reproduce.

Quote

Q: You said earlier that Parshendi are primarily asexual, does that extend to all Listeners -- parshmen, and those descended from Listeners, like Horneaters and Herdazians -- or is it just the Parshendi?
A: Most Listener forms are asexual, but several forms are different, including slaveform. Horneaters and Herdazians are not, as a rule, though there are higher instances of asexuality among them.
Q: I was actually wondering about how Parshmen would reproduce if they are only in slaveform? I thought one had to be in mateform in order to reproduce?
A: For the first, mateform is not the only form capable of producing--any more than warform is the only one capable of swinging a sword. The forms are specializations.
source

Edited June 20, 2017 by Oversleep

[+Extesian]

16 minutes ago, Oversleep said:

@hwiles, the thing is every form can reproduce.

I don't agree with this Oversleep. That WoB says that mateform is not the only form that can reproduce, but it doesn't say every form can. More than that it explicitly says that "most listener forms are asexual".

And there's this older one

Quote

Hi, Brandon! Really appreciate that you do this with your fanbase, and if you take the time to read or answer this, thanks for that as well! Your works are amazing, though I'm sure everyone else has said that already, heh. Okay, questions!

1. Can Feruchemists store more than the five ‘traditional’ senses, and does Allomantic tin enhance more than the traditional five senses?
2. Asking this one for a friend of mine! Have you included (or do you potentially intend to include) any asexual characters in your published works? Asexual characters don't seem to be very common in fiction, and I'm sure it would be fantastic for people that identify as such to feel in any way represented by one of your characters!

Right, thanks again (hehe).

•  

[–]mistborn[S] 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (8 children)

1. More is possible.
2. I originally conceived the asexual nature of most Parshendi (from the Stormlight Archive) forms after reading a very thought-provoking article written by someone asexual. The idea of a primarily asexual race was a fascinating idea to me, and you will see this more in future books.

source

 

[Oversleep]

16 minutes ago, Extesian said:

I don't agree with this Oversleep. That WoB says that mateform is not the only form that can reproduce, but it doesn't say every form can. More than that it explicitly says that "most listener forms are asexual".

Just because they're asexual doesn't mean they are physically incapable of reproduction. Asexual Herdazians of Horneaters are not infertile or anything.

[The One Who Connects]

1 minute ago, Oversleep said:

Asexual Herdazians of Horneaters are not infertile or anything.

I'm curious what you consider an "instance of asexuality among them" then. Genuinely curious, given the biological definition of asexual.

[+Extesian]

Just now, The One Who Connects said:

I'm curious what you consider an "instance of asexuality among them" then. Genuinely curious, given the biological definition of asexual.

Yeah I was thinking biological asexuality as well (and I assume they don't mate with themselves). But @Oversleep it is possible you're right, he could just be talking about desire. I just don't think so from the way Eshonai refers to the forms. But your comment does make more sense now.

[Oversleep]

Well, if they're asexual it means they lack sexual attraction or that their interest in sexual activity is low or non-existent.

If I'm not mistaken, the "biological" asexuality you speak of refers to asexual reproduction which we know they do not do.

[Calderis]

I have to agree with @Oversleep here. Brandon says in that WoB that he was inspired to write the Parshendi after reading an article written by someone who was asexual. 

Asexuality in humans is a less known sexual orientation. So, considering Brandon's use of the word there, I believe that the Parshendi Asexuality is an unwillingness/lack of drive, and not a physical incapacity.