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 che-laugh

  • combat_brandonism [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    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

      • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        14·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • combat_brandonism [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • combat_brandonism [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            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.