Female characters really suck

[Diana Levin]

Is it just me, or do Robert Jordan's female characters suck?
I love his series and have re read it at least three times. His male characters are all great. Still, I find myself getting irritated with his female characters. They all seem to have the same over generalized personality, which is-- "angry, man-bullying, bossy and sometimes incredibly stupid." One of my least favorite characters is Elayne. She seems like a complete idiot to me. I though at first she would grow out of it, but with every book I liked her less and less. And what’s up with all the Aes Sedai? They are supposed to be the most powerful women in the world but they seem to behave like gossiping old ladies, clawing at each other’s hair.
All his male characters are complex and very different in personality and temperament. All his female characters seem to have only one purpose in life—“to make men’s lives miserable.” I just find it very disappointing

Am I the only one who feels that way?

 

[Pyan]

Oh no - it's one of the main reasons I gave up.
Braid pulling, skirt-lengths, and men are all stupid and we know better.....

 

[Talysia]

I must admit, I find most of his female characters irritating. Right from book one I found Nynaeve annoying, and about the same for Elayne when she was introduced. Oh, and I find braid tugging incredibly annoying, too!

 

[woodsman]

Yep they really do, hell knows what the Women Jordan has met are like, I hope I never cross their paths. It's the whole we know best thing that annoys yours truly, but then I find Rand and Perin at the present time to be rapidly catching up in the annoyance stakes so...

It's just there is not one good female charachter, except Min possibly.

 

[Sephiroth]

It's a fair point...particularly the question what's with the Aes Sedai? The stock actions and emotions get pretty tiresome. Elayne is also one of my least favourite characters, she is very annoying.

But for all that, I actually like Nynaeve a lot...

 

[dustinzgirl]

Is it just me, or do Robert Jordan's female characters suck?
I love his series and have re read it at least three times. His male characters are all great. Still, I find myself getting irritated with his female characters. They all seem to have the same over generalized personality, which is-- "angry, man-bullying, bossy and sometimes incredibly stupid." One of my least favorite characters is Elayne. She seems like a complete idiot to me. I though at first she would grow out of it, but with every book I liked her less and less. And what’s up with all the Aes Sedai? They are supposed to be the most powerful women in the world but they seem to behave like gossiping old ladies, clawing at each other’s hair.
All his male characters are complex and very different in personality and temperament. All his female characters seem to have only one purpose in life—“to make men’s lives miserable.” I just find it very disappointing

Am I the only one who feels that way?

Jordan wrote women from a classical male perspective.

And I know many women that act exactly the same, myself included at times.

Every woman I have ever known acts and does stupid crap, can be bossy, naggy, and gossipy quite often.

Then again, so has every man.

And Rand is a big whiner throughout most of the book, Matt is more the metrosexual sissy type of guy.

Also, I don't really tug on my braids, but I do chew on them, especially when I am inside because I can't smoke.

 

[Diana Levin]

Jordan wrote women from a classical male perspective.

And I know many women that act exactly the same, myself included at times.

Every woman I have ever known acts and does stupid crap, can be bossy, naggy, and gossipy quite often.

Then again, so has every man.

And Rand is a big whiner throughout most of the book, Matt is more the metrosexual sissy type of guy.

Also, I don't really tug on my braids, but I do chew on them, especially when I am inside because I can't smoke.

Yeah, I might have met some women like that...but it still doesn't explain why almost every single female personality in his story is that way. its unrealistic and stereotypical. Its seems like the variations are either...angry, man-hating angry or bossy." And "at times" women might act like that, but under special
circumstances...not every single moment of the day. Jordan makes it seem like thats all they ever do.

 

[C Of K]

This phenomenon probably stems from the fact that the male half of the source is tainted. So it is very much a woman's world. But this isn't enough of an excuse, of course.

I think the biggest problem is RJ himself. He probably has a hard time writing female characters, and contents himself with using strongly over the top stereotypes, and leaves it at that.

Oh, and then there's the problem that most of the important female characters can channel... What I mean to say is, Lan is a warder, and carries around a sword, Thom is a Gleeman, and has his cloak with patches, Mat blows the horn of Valere and has all those strange memories and the dice, Perrin has his lichen-like powers...but most of the women, except for Min of course, (who I found to be the most interesting of them) can only channel.

It kind of takes away from the interst when they are all practically the same character.

 

[Eidurson]

Yep, they're pretty darn annoying. I tell you what doesn't help though is Jordan's insistence on describing the breasts of every single female character every single time they appear.
Get over it! Either have a few racy scenes like ASOIAF or just leave it out!!!

 

[the_faery_queen]

but it's not a woman's world. without going into a big feministy rant here, the women THINK they're in charge, the men think they're in charge, until they get in a relationship. then the men become instantly dominant over them, the women seem happy tro submit and in my mind, that doesn't make it a woman's world. it makes it a 1950s type situation, with a bossy hosuewife who loosk after the kids, cooks the meals and bosses her husband around. but he's really in charge and puts her in his place whenever it suits him. not a woman's world at all. jsut the illision of it.

i read that jordan said he used to spy on conversations that women had to learn how to write them (i've said this here before but there you are) and he thinks he does agood job. he didn't get that a, women act differently in different groups, and b, whenever all your characters start acting the same, it's not a good job. his women are awful. his men aren't that much better, they also have similiar sorts of traits, but the women are a lot less flattering. he seems to think self righteousness and nagging makes a woman strong, or something. but it doesn't.

 

[C Of K]

You've got a point there. But it is not a 1950's situation on a political scale. But being from the united states where, sadly, we have yet to elect a female president, I might see things differently than others. Women hold most of the political authority in RJ's books.

It's true that Rand is considered the savior, but I think RJ has made it clear that Rand can't do what he needs to do without the women who can channel. And who knows, maybe RJ was slapped across the face a few times by someone like Cadsuane. Rand can't afford to make the same mistakes that Lews Therin made. that's an overbearing theme in these books

 

[dustinzgirl]

Yeah, I might have met some women like that...but it still doesn't explain why almost every single female personality in his story is that way. its unrealistic and stereotypical. Its seems like the variations are either...angry, man-hating angry or bossy." And "at times" women might act like that, but under special
circumstances...not every single moment of the day. Jordan makes it seem like thats all they ever do.

So are the men though, they all act (with the exception of a few) like spoiled teenagers who can't live off their mom's teet.

 

[the_faery_queen]

women hold the political power, but when you're totally dominated by men and dont' really make your own decisions, are you really holding the power? and when they lose said power, they instantly to submit to men!
none of the women have any real power, any real position. the men are in control, just not offically. perhaps you could see it as a reversal of this world, where men are offically in control, but perhaps dominated by their wives at home, or something (if you believe that, and im sure some do on a sterotypical level. and i have had this argued before, that jordan's world is a reversal of ours) but even so, that doesn't explain why his women are so unflattering.

 

[C Of K]

women hold the political power, but when you're totally dominated by men and dont' really make your own decisions, are you really holding the power? and when they lose said power, they instantly to submit to men!

Which characters exactly are you referring to? The wise ones don't seem to bow to anyone but each other. Neither does Cadsuane for that matter. Remember what happened in Far Madding? Aleis submitted to Cadsuane, not to Rand or any other man.

Anyone can choose to make anything they like of these stories. I personally don't see women submitting to men very often when I read them, at least not politically, but I do see women pulling strings every bit as much as the men do. And I've never read where any Aes Sedai gave up power to her warder.

none of the women have any real power, any real position.

If I was to agree with this, I would have to say that only a few characters in all of the story do have any real power, and there wouldn't be a single High Lord with any real power. Rand would be one of those characters, and the other would be Moridin. Almost everyone else bows to, or is being manipulated by one or the other.

I can see how many women can find Robert Jordan's stereotypical depiction of women "unflattering" but when I read the books, I think the very same thing of the men.

 

[the_faery_queen]

not power in that sense. im talking about power at home. relationship power. the men have ALL the power in relationships, these 'strong' women instantly cave, let the men spank them for heavens sake (which is ridiculous. NO man who loves a woman would punish her for disobeying him! he would respect her as an equal) but as many of the men don't seem to respect their partners as equals at home, how on earth can they respect them as equals, or even, dominates, in the political world? if the man can boss his wife around, tell her what to do, make him obey her at home, then she has no real power outside either

if she was equal to him at home, then yes, i would say she had some sort of power. but all i see are the women caving into the men, letting them do what they want, trying to please them, becoming submissive. and that makes the power they have outside of the bedroom somewhat of an illision. amyrilin seat, the old one, full of her power, her position, lets herself get dominated and oubished by the man she loves. why he would want to do that if he loved her (same with perrin and faille) shows me that they dont' really see women as equals. if they did, they wouldn't do that! they wouldn't think of doing that. and ok that's just two guys, but it's something i get the feel of from most of the men, that they would stop their women doing things they didn't like, punish them perhaps, it says to me they don't respect their women as individuals. it doesn't seem to be about trying to protect them, but control them. and that says the women don't have any real power

and yeah, i think the same of the men. i don't like any of them.

 

[dustinzgirl]

Faery, I know so many women who were all "OMG FEMINIST RULES!" then when they got home and married they are cooking, cleaning, and raising babies (and still working full time, go figure).

Myself included.

Women will do a lot for the love of a man (or woman), its in our nature to want to be loved. Otherwise, why would so many women stay with a husband who beats them, verbally abuses them, or rapes them? Because they want those in between moments of utter beautiful amazing love, and will take abuse (and in some cases, even commit illegal acts, like in that old kidnapping case, I'll have to look it up) because they love their man.

 

[Rosemary]

I always looked at WOT as being set in a similar time line as ASOIAF... medieval. So, in those days it was quite normal for that sort of behaviour.

 

[Diana Levin]

but it's not a woman's world. without going into a big feministy rant here, the women THINK they're in charge, the men think they're in charge, until they get in a relationship. then the men become instantly dominant over them, the women seem happy tro submit and in my mind, that doesn't make it a woman's world. it makes it a 1950s type situation, with a bossy hosuewife who loosk after the kids, cooks the meals and bosses her husband around. but he's really in charge and puts her in his place whenever it suits him. not a woman's world at all. jsut the illision of it.

quote]

I suppose if there wasn't some kind of power struggle between men and women, than it wouldn't feel like real life. And isn't that what a good story is supposed to do...allow us to feel pain and suffering of the characters in it, so that we can relate to them better?
I think that is what Jordan...and many other authors are trying to portray. If the world was equal, and everyone was treated fairly, and all was good, than there wouldn't be any story at all. There would be no point in writing a story if everyone just got along.
Drama is built on inequality, injustice, intrigue and the power struggles between one group and another. That is what makes it so interesting. Because that’s real life.
I certainly don’t agree with you that Jordan's female characters always submit to the men. I am not sure what lines you are reading...but I really don't get that from the books at all. Maybe some had submitted....but so what? That’s realistic, isn't it? Some women will still submit to their men…it happens in real life all the time. You are angry at the injustice, and that’s what makes for a good dramatic story.

 

[Eidurson]

Bashere and his wife contradict this though...

 

[Thadlerian]

I think it can be stated quite fairly that the primary gender problem with WoT is that men are allowed to fill a wide range of character types, whereas all the women (I'm making this judgement having read books 1-5) seem to be the same character, with the same abilities and faults. Further, these are faults that somehow prevent the females from becoming sympathetic characters. They may be likeable, as they're beautiful (somehow, a woman's first defined characteristic is her looks, whereas a man's is his actions), physically powerful, brave, and generally create intrigue and action whenever they appear, but none of them appear mild and sympathetic like the males. Can you see a Jordan female in the shoes of Rand, Tam, Mat, Perrin, Lan, Tallanvor (or what was that guard's name) or that prince dude in book 2 who apologizes for being a darkfriend?

However, it should also be noted that Jordan does nothing new, he just emphasizes a trend that has become common in SF/F (and mainstream media as well?), most likely as a half-hearted attempt to satisfy feminism, in which the formula has become the following: Female strenght = Power. Male strenght = Propensity to do objective good. Use of this formula can be found with writers as diverse as David Eddings and Kim Stanley Robinson.

The "damsel in distress" is no longer accepted; she has now been replaced by the "incompetent tomboy".