Historically Accurate Sexism in Fantasy

[Graylorne]

In a fantasy setting, particularly, there are any number of ways around childbearing and suckling issues, bounded only by your imagination and however much reason you want to apply to magic in your world. The idea that those things have to be problematic is too short-sighted, in my view. Of course, you can elect to construct your world in such a way that they are problematic, but it certainly isn't a necessary characteristic of the world. And even without resorting to magic you could address it if you wanted to. As said by BronzeOracle, above, real-world historical limitations are not necessary limitations of your fantasy world.

My Warlocky Kells are matriarchal warrioresses. When young, they have strong urges that help them fight but can be bothersome in peace. To alleviate this, they start practicing sex younger than we do. To prevent accidents, all Kell girls have a small preventive talisman under their skin that gets removed when they've reached a more mature age.

My Shardheld main female character starts adventuring carrying her baby around. No child care in the area. Later, she goes on running and riding while pregnant. Of course those Viking girls were quite hardy...

So I agree it's all quite possible. Just sit down and write it. And study a bit of obstetrics, there's plenty on the internet.

 

[Gryphos]

I think the problem is that modern feminist ideals only accept one form of equality between the sexes, they insist that women are the same as men, able to do anything and everything a man can do and just as well if not better. This is, however, patently ridiculous and is a VERY modern idea incompatible with pretty much every historical culture. There are many historical cultures that view men and women as equal in value, but not in function. This usually isn't enough for modern feminists.

I personally never bought the whole separate but equal idea. Because isn't it just two-way sexism? It's one thing to say that man's role is the warrior, and woman's the child rearer, but what if you get a man who wants to care for the children, and a woman who wants to fight. Should they not be allowed to? No. Therefore, if they're not enforced, should those 'roles' even exist? No. Equality is not 'separate but equal', equality is the lack of roles imposed on men and women, and therefore them being allowed to pursue anything they wish without being judged for it.

More on topic, it is a very difficult thing to deal with, and I think Jabrosky made a very good point about having to reconcile infatuation with past time periods with modern ideals. One thing I've found about my world building is that I don't have to be tied down at all by even modern ideals. For example, upon realising how inherently sexist it is that throughout the past and even today women are expected to take the man's last name, I decided to make it so in my 19th century inspired world that's not the inherent norm. In my world sometimes the woman takes the man's last name, and sometimes the man takes the woman's last name, decided by them.

Now, I fully understand that some writers (GRRM comes to mind) want to try and emulate a historical setting in their work, and therefore keep all the misogyny which was inherent to that period. It can make for interesting characters and scenarios. But I also think that more writers should, when coming up with these worlds, stop and think "does there really need to be sexism in this world, or am I just assuming there does?"

 

[Jabrosky]

I personally never bought the whole separate but equal idea. Because isn't it just two-way sexism? It's one thing to say that man's role is the warrior, and woman's the child rearer, but what if you get a man who wants to care for the children, and a woman who wants to fight. Should they not be allowed to? No. Therefore, if they're not enforced, should those 'roles' even exist? No. Equality is not 'separate but equal', equality is the lack of roles imposed on men and women, and therefore them being allowed to pursue anything they wish without being judged for it.

That is exactly what I understand feminism to mean. People should enjoy the opportunity to do whatever they want to do, regardless of gender or whatever, as long as they don't hurt others

With regards to the infatuation with history that I mentioned earlier, sometimes I wonder why we as fantasy writers so often look to the past for setting influences. I'd even go so far as to say that the major difference between conventional fantasy and science fiction is that fantasy looks backward and sci-fi looks forward. Why do we so often gravitate towards lower technology levels with all their limitations?

(Actually that might work better for a separate thread in the World-Building subforum...)

 

[Devor]

First I just want to point out, in case some people missed it, that we have a necromancer in our midst. This thread is a couple of years old and some of the people at the start of the thread may not be around to reply.

As for me, I'll let the historians argue about history. I would be more concerned about authentic medieval sexism if I writing towards a medieval audience. I think there are some reasonably valid concerns about women in the military or construction, and others surrounding the need for nursing, in a world that doesn't have our modern tools and conveniences. But as a modern reader, and a modern writer, I don't think I have much interest in stories or settings that are a little *too* authentic to certain times or places.

In my WIP the primary MC is a male, but the secondary POVs are about evenly split. One of them is a woman who is part of a female cavalry unit, which is valued because their lighter weight is important to combat in the setting. So while I will reiterate that I think some of the points above are valid as a starting place in a pre-modern setting, I don't by any means consider them insurmountable.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think the problem is that modern feminist ideals only accept one form of equality between the sexes, they insist that women are the same as men, able to do anything and everything a man can do and just as well if not better. This is, however, patently ridiculous and is a VERY modern idea incompatible with pretty much every historical culture. There are many historical cultures that view men and women as equal in value, but not in function. This usually isn't enough for modern feminists.

Reminds me of a theocratic monarchist I used to argue with on another site. He said voting was against human nature because all our myths are about kings and none are about Presidents. (He tended to pretend myths didn't exist when they weren't written by people who had the same skin color as him.)

Personally, I see it as a matter of history--but not our history. I have a setting that's just recovering from a war with higher casualty rates than WWI. Conscripts were mostly male, and the folks who didn't make it back had their jobs filled by women out of necessity. That society has very different gender roles than the one where magic exists and is traditionally only taught to white males!

 

[skip.knox]

Shockley is right, and Feo makes a good point as well. FWIW, I have an MA in medieval history and a PhD in early modern social history--if nothing else, I can claim to have read many history books.

I've also taught these subjects for 30 or so years. Over and over I have students who say essentially the same thing as the article, not only on this topic but on many others besides. The core message is the same--we were never taught this before. Someone must be suppressing the information.

Not at all. It's not suppressed or secret; the plain fact is, the person in question simply hasn't read enough history. Had they done so, they would, as Shockley has, realize the issue is way more complicated and interesting than that.

Despite the above, I am glad for the link!