Wheel of Time: changing Egwene’s motive for leaving the Two Rivers and following Moiraine has been praised as ‘justification’ for changing the basic rules of the world of WoT, namely, that it is not possible for a man to be reborn as a woman (Egwene CANNOT BE the Dragon Reborn).
If Egwene could be the Dragon Reborn, and Moiraine doesn’t know who it is, of course she’d take Egwene with her (as she takes Rand, Mat, and Perrin in the books).
This is supposed to be a “better” reason for Egwene leaving the Two Rivers than Egwene’s own desire to leave.
Is it? Rand, Mat, and Perrin *have* to go with Moiraine.
Egwene, and for a different reason, Nynaeve, *decide* to go.
In other words, the AGENCY (at first) falls to the young women.
And that has been written OUT.
And said to be an IMPROVEMENT.
Most of the agency is — at first — female. Rand, Mat, and Perrin are following Moiraine. Egwene and Nynaeve choose to go of their own accord. That seems an important distinction.
The boys will have to (and do) grow into agency and responsibility, but the girls have a head start.
My point here is that the “improvement” to Egwene is … to make her be just like one of the boys.
Is that really — an improvement?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I suspect the Wheel of Time tv series is infected with trans ideology.
It may be a small point, but the first episode opens with Moiraine saying that the Dragon Reborn could be one of five children from the Two Rivers.
This makes no sense. The Dragon is male. He is always male. He will always be male. The Dragon is the avatar of maleness.
The Wheel of Time does reincarnate people, but it is *always* the same sex. Because “being a man” and “being a woman” in WoT is to have a connection to the Divine Source, which has a Yin-Yang male/female complementary structure. The connection is EXPLICIT in Aes Sedai & Asha'man.
The more I look into the feminist critique of gender ideology, the happier I am that trans ideology is *utterly steamrolling* feminism. That old horror needs to die — trans ideology does need to be opposed, but in this case the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.
Gender ideology and feminism are close kin in some ways. Both are Kantian — or rather, feminism is Kantian and Gender Ideology is post-Kantian, via Nietzsche to Foucault.
Feminism posits that a woman’s “true” self is her immaterial, autonomous self, which is, sadly, stapled to a natural body, which is a kind of detestable burden and hateful oppressor.
The so-called Scold’s Bride was never used during the Middle ages. It is, of course, a modern invention. It was invented when Galileo was using telescopes, the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, Francis Bacon was inventing empirical science, and so on.
I would love to know how often this device was used and for how long.
I’m willing to make a blind bet that the answer is “almost never” and “it was a fad that died out in one generation.”
“This term and the punishment for it appears to have gone out of use by the early 17th Century.”
Which is funny, because it also *started* in the early 17th Century.
The argument from evil requires premises which cannot be established, such as
P1: We are in an epistemic position to know that God could not possibly have a justification for permitting certain evils.
P2: We are in an epistemic position to know what God would or would not do.
Note very well that the argument from evil requires establishing a NEGATIVE EXISTENTIAL, that is, it must prove that there is NO POSSIBILITY of there existing a justification for evil that God could have.
Note further that proving this Negative Existential “there is no possible justification that God could have for permitting evil” carries with it “there is no possibility of there being such a justification which is beyond human comprehension.”
It should be evident, I trust, that the ENTIRE POINT of the Logical Argument from Evil is to generate a SET of propositions, a Triad, Tetrad, howevermany-rad, in which “There is evil” + “there is a God” + [various things about God] ⇒ Contradiction.
That is why it is the LOGICAL argument from evil. Because it purports to find a LOGICAL contradiction between propositions.