![[CW: Racism] The mod log has become hilarious again](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/23e656bb-0357-4bfd-83cb-08c40b966093.jpeg){kind=link}
Thank you, federation, for bringing libs to our lair once again.
They really always default to the same fucking shit "BOT! XINNIE THE POOH!" like an actual NPC 
Thank you, federation, for bringing libs to our lair once again.
They really always default to the same fucking shit "BOT! XINNIE THE POOH!" like an actual NPC
it's distilled through the lens of modern anglo bullshit so it's not great on gender but a lot of wheel of time draws from norse mythology, including the gender-bendy parts. calling it gender essentialist is a pretty shallow read
Pretty much all fiction draws from something else. That doesn't automatically give anything a pass, and calling it a "shallow read" implies that if I read it deeply I would automatically approve of its ideology. The Peterson Maneuver is kind of in bad taste.
EDIT: Also, saying "actually the gender magic isn't essentialist because genders can shift like in Norse mythology" still doesn't remove the fact that magic is gender coded in a contrived way from the start in the metaphysics of the fiction. A similar excuse could be made of Gygax's establishment of racism with essentialist characterstics in D&D where creatures could shift to different races by magical means (such as the druid reincarnation spell, but not exclusive to that) but orcs are nonetheless "born evil" and it's a "good act" to kill them no matter the circumstances.
You're allowed to like it, but accusing people of being "shallow" in their reading if they don't agree with you is a lot like accusing people of "taking
out of context" if they don't nod along to everything Professor Lobster says.
Compare Discworld, which has strongly gendered magic but is made very clear that it's a cultural construct and anyone can learn either mode (or both, though generally not at once) if they have the right mindset and inclination.
Thank you for making that example.
there's an explicitly trans male character that channels the appropriate magic. he's considered the weird woman who channels male magic until it's dropped that satan literally cursed him to live as a woman. it's a very binary gender system but if you're going to have eternal souls, it's not an awful way to handle trans characters. there's a lot wrong with the gender politics and Jordan sucks ass at writing women so there's much riper targets to criticize the series over than this.
I feel better informed about that; I didn't get that far. I still don't have to like the series overall (the fandom tends to really put me off) but I appreciate your post.
definitely. the first 6 books are ok if you turn your brain off and don't think too hard about them but the later books really drag on and on and on and on. I had infinite patience as a kid and I miss that sometimes. the fandom is absolutely cursed.
I've already felt the fandom's toxicity in this thread.
Love to have a cis man come at me about what is and isn't gender essentialism because he perceives me as being a treat defender and therefore the target of his life's vendetta.
Calling it a shallow read doesn't imply anything of the sort. As others pointed out in more detail than me, there are better places to critique the books and how they handle gender. Which is the point of what I wrote.
I fucking knew when I wrote that reply I'd get an arrogant, condescending reply like this. I don't like the vibe you've brought to hexbear since you've been here, and I will not reply further.
You took a criticism of a piece of fiction as an attack on yourself. When I talk about "treat defending" that tends to be what I'm talking about: when people identify with a consumer product to the point that they feel attacked personally if that product is criticized.
If you're going to do that, that leaves no room for discussing (and especially not criticizing) the product outside of mandatory agreement with you.
EDIT:
I criticized a piece of fiction, not you or your identity. By contrast, you did directly make this about personal attacks on my character, and by your own admission, you've maintained that hostility for some time now.
Ok one more reply since this is an excellent example and to not reply would be at least one type of liberalism. I took your comparison of my words to lobster man as an attack on myself, which it was. My original reply was not hostile and intended to correct your critique so that you can better target future ridicule of these books. But because you have this weird persecution complex you interpret any disagreement as treat defending, and collapse further, more hostile replies into that. When you're usually the one that escalates hostility in the first place!
I absolutely think these books are worthy of ridicule because they're full of unexamined cringe patriarchy from start-to-finish.
I saw you do this exact same thing in a thread just yesterday or the day before. It's incredibly off-putting.
It's a shame because I've learned a lot from your posts (i.e. about how gross the gambo writer is, etc.) and they often prompt me to write replies to you before I delete them because I know that if my reply isn't a 100% circlejerk of your point, you're going to jump down my throat and immediately escalate into hostility over it. That's what I can't stand about your participation here.
I will be disengaging now and would appreciate you doing the same.
I tried to send this as a personal message several times but it didn't go through, and because it isn't technically violating a disengagement because you posted a lot more than a disengagement declaration of intent in your last post, I'll just post the message here.
Privately, I just read your most recent message in good faith (even if it blatantly violated the disengagement rules) and I think you did have a point.
I saw "shallow reading" as a presumptive, and yes, arrogant claim that if I read it deeper (and I wasn't interested; the patriarchal presentation and the bad female writing and the gendered magic system in the books put me off very early on) that I would agree with you, thus my Petersonian reference.
Looking back, comparing your post to Jordan Peterson's "you can't disagree if you watched enough videos" sophistry was incendiary and I actually do regret that, especially because I didn't even know that you actually agreed with me about the actual ideological presentation in the books more than you originally let on. But that was lost in the spiraling escalation.
You don't have to like me, and I'm not exactly happy about "I never liked your posts and you don't belong here" hostility, but I think I will take some of what you said to heart anyway.
"Disengage" posts are supposed to be just that: a declaration of disengagement. You didn't post that; you posted a lot more.