Women in fantasy

[Mindfire]

I'm curious. Does anyone here see anything contradictory or otherwise problematic about a culture that:

• Assigns war, animal husbandry, music, and aesthetic gardening as traditionally masculine
• Assigns agriculture, oral tradition, and home defense as traditionally feminine
• Assigns craftsmanship as gender neutral
• Has a wedding custom in which husband and wife face off in ritual combat to decide who will be the head of household

The rationale behind these assignments is that while this culture considers parenthood a shared responsibility, the bond between mother and child is seen as especially special and sacred. In order not to interfere with that, women take tasks that keep them closer to home, leaving things that may require traveling away from home for extended periods (war, herding) as male activities. The culture has spiritual reasons for art &c. being traditionally masculine. Haven't quite worked them out yet. (Maybe it's to help men better understand the mysterious mother-child connection by using their creativity?) The actual reason is that I thought it would be amusing to have a barbarian culture in which brawny warrior men are expected to spend a great deal of time looking after flowers and small shrubs. The idea for this culture is a work in progress. I'm still ironing out the wrinkles.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Edit: Oops, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "problematic". (I thought you were talking about offense, not believability. I was going to argue that the former isn't relevant in this context, since you're portraying rather than advocating. I don't see any obvious problem in terms of the latter, but I'm no anthropologist.)

 

[Nihal]

The huns and incas soldiers took their families with them when encamping. Also, don't forget that wars aren't fought only "far away from home". What does happen when the war is brought near to where they live? Who will protect the families? If it's a equalist society I can see these women in the role of homeland protectors, watchers and such.

 

[glutton]

The huns and incas soldiers took their families with them when encamping. Also, don't forget that wars aren't fought only "far away from home". What does happen when the war is brought near to where they live? Who will protect the families? If it's a equalist society I can see these women in the role of homeland protectors, watchers and such.

I think Mindfire said in his proposed culture home defense is considered traditionally feminine.

 

[Nihal]

Ops, ended focusing on the "close to family" aspect. He only needs to make it believable. Don't only say "they protect their homes", like some authors do with their heroines saying "she's badass" and making them damsel-in-distress instead. (Not saying you do this, Mindfire!)

Don't let this aspect sink too far in the story, remind the readers that they're fighters too, and the duels are going to be more believable.

Anyway, I wonder how the males see the women staying behind. It's an aspect that could lead to prejudice, E.G. "I was away fighting in wars and now you want to control our home?".

 

[glutton]

like some authors do with their heroines saying "she's badass" and making them damsel-in-distress instead.

I wonder if I could come off this way with some of my warrior male leads lol... granted those men are the 2nd/3rd best warriors in their entire kingdom but still noticeably a step behind the female MCs in their books.

 

[Mindfire]

Ops, ended focusing on the "close to family" aspect. He only needs to make it believable. Don't only say "they protect their homes", like some authors do with their heroines saying "she's badass" and making them damsel-in-distress instead. (Not saying you do this, Mindfire!)

Don't let this aspect sink too far in the story, remind the readers that they're fighters too, and the duels are going to be more believable.

Anyway, I wonder how the males see the women staying behind. It's an aspect that could lead to prejudice, E.G. "I was away fighting in wars and now you want to control our home?".

If the husband or wife does not feel they are getting a fair shake, they may challenge their spouse to another duel to sort of sue for leadership. However, there is more at stake. There is no shame in losing the first duel, but if the challenger loses the second duel it is considered a shame, as this culture believes it is disgraceful to make empty threats and boasts.

Also note that women are as likely as men to win these ritual duels. The men are (on average but not always) bigger and stronger than women, but women are trained to be faster and far more aggressive to balance this difference.

 

[glutton]

but women are trained to be faster and far more aggressive to balance this difference.

It doesn't seem very realistic that the women are trained to be 'far more' aggressive if the men have to go to war, I would expect both to be trained to be as aggressive as they need to be unless the men off at war are meant to be subpar warriors.

Also women aren't naturally faster than men IRL (although the rules could be different in your fantasy setting like they are in mine).

 

[Anders Ämting]

I'm curious. Does anyone here see anything contradictory or otherwise problematic about a culture that:

-Assigns war, animal husbandry, music, and aesthetic gardening as traditionally masculine
-Assigns agriculture, oral tradition, and home defense as traditionally feminine

It seems to me that music and oral tradition should have some overlap: songs are oral tradition, after all. Thus, I'd find it a bit odd if one gender was in charge of stories and poetry while the other is in charge of music and song. Those are traditions that would probably have evolved from the same source.

-Has a wedding custom in which husband and wife face off in ritual combat to decide who will be the head of household

I dunno... isn't that basically to promote violent conflicts as a way to solve relationship and gender issues? Seems like a good way to get a culture of spousal abuse on your hands.

It also seems to imply that a marriage is inherently about domination: That one part of the married couple always has to have authority over the other.

Anyway, what does being "the head of the household" actually mean? They already have pretty specific gender roles: Women handle agriculture, men handle gardening, etc. If both parts of the couple have very specific duties, what does it mean to be the "head" and why is being the head apparently totally interchangeable depending on who is the best asskicker?

The actual reason is that I thought it would be amusing to have a barbarian culture in which brawny warrior men are expected to spend a great deal of time looking after flowers and small shrubs.

I think you would end up with a very "cultured" bunch of barbarians by necessity - you've basically set them up to be warrior-poets who spends their off-time gardening. I would expect them to be very introspective and artistic, which is going to reflect on their martial philosophy and attitude a lot. More samurai than viking, basically. (In fact, samurai were traditionally required to be proficient in both poetry and floral arrangement.)

Otherwise, you seem to have left out religion and economics, and those are kinda important things when it comes to determining who is really on top in a society. Basically, who talks to the gods, and who handles the money?

 

[Mindfire]

It doesn't seem very realistic that the women are trained to be 'far more' aggressive if the men have to go to war, I would expect both to be trained to be as aggressive as they need to be unless the men off at war are meant to be subpar warriors.

Also women aren't naturally faster than men IRL (although the rules could be different in your fantasy setting like they are in mine).

Have you ever witnessed the wrath of a mother bear? IMO, it makes perfect sense for women to be trained to be more aggressive. Think about it. If the men are far afield, that means the women at home are the last line of defense between the enemy and everything that matters. Also, I've learned from experience that the smaller fighter has to be faster and more aggressive to take on a bigger opponent, just on general principles. It's not that the men are trained to be substandard so much as the females are trained to compensate for their size if necessary.

 

[glutton]

The way you say women are trained to be 'more aggressive' implies that the men are trained to be 'less aggressive' than them to the point of it being a disadvantage against them - how is that not giving the men who are supposed to go to war suboptimal training?

Also, men are naturally faster than women although you could change this for your setting, but you should probably make that clear somehow.

 

[Mindfire]

It seems to me that music and oral tradition should have some overlap: songs are oral tradition, after all. Thus, I'd find it a bit odd if one gender was in charge of stories and poetry while the other is in charge of music and song. Those are traditions that would probably have evolved from the same source.

I hadn't thought of that. I think I'll shift them both to the neutral category.

I dunno... isn't that basically to promote violent conflicts as a way to solve relationship and gender issues? Seems like a good way to get a culture of spousal abuse on your hands.

I think this culture's somewhat unusual system of honor might prevent that. In this culture, slavery is considered dishonorable because needing chains in order to keep your servants under control is a sign of weakness. Likewise abusers would be stigmatized as weak and insecure because they need to constantly beat their subordinates to remind them who's in charge. Note that being a subordinate is NOT stigmatized or considered dishonorable in this culture.

It also seems to imply that a marriage is inherently about domination: That one part of the married couple always has to have authority over the other.

It does, but they see nothing wrong with that, so long as the dominating party has proven their worth.

Anyway, what does being "the head of the household" actually mean? They already have pretty specific gender roles: Women handle agriculture, men handle gardening, etc. If both parts of the couple have very specific duties, what does it mean to be the "head" and why is being the head apparently totally interchangeable depending on who is the best asskicker?

I'm thinking that "head" means "administrator" or "boss", the person who gets the final say on everything. Also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsskickingEqualsAuthority

I think you would end up with a very "cultured" bunch of barbarians by necessity - you've basically set them up to be warrior-poets who spends their off-time gardening. I would expect them to be very introspective and artistic, which is going to reflect on their martial philosophy and attitude a lot. More samurai than viking, basically. (In fact, samurai were traditionally required to be proficient in both poetry and floral arrangement.)

That might actually work. Originally this culture wasn't very fleshed out and looked too much like the Dothrakis for my liking. Something like that would make them more unique and I don't really have any other warrior-poet cultures.

Otherwise, you seem to have left out religion and economics, and those are kinda important things when it comes to determining who is really on top in a society. Basically, who talks to the gods, and who handles the money?

I've got religion mostly sorted. Just need to formalize it. This culture will not have priests or an organized religion per se, more like a loose collection of gods, ancestors, and tribal spirits with shrines and monuments. I may draw on Polynesian influence for that. They may have shamans, but I'm not sure how they would be chosen yet. As for economics, I honestly hadn't thought about that. I considered making them communist, but that seems to clash with the rest of their culture. Perhaps the dominant spouse also takes care of the money?

 

[Nihal]

Also, men are naturally faster than women although you could change this for your setting, but you should probably make that clear somehow.

Really? You're in danger of falling in the same stereotypical line of thought someone has fallen earlier in this topic. Just... don't.

 

[Kit]

They may have shamans, but I'm not sure how they would be chosen yet.

Real shamans (which show up in cultures all over the world) are usually "called" to their duty by dreams or other spiritual experiences.

 

[glutton]

Really? You're in danger of falling in the same stereotypical line of thought someone has fallen earlier in this topic. Just... don't.

Factual info=stereotype? In our world men are on average faster - testosterone enhances explosiveness. Of course an individual woman could be faster or stronger than an average man or even most men, but if we're talking a whole society, biology would likely have to be different in that world to support no advantage for active men on average. I mean we aren't discussing a woman being fast or strong, we're discussing women in general being faster than men.

A way to make men and women more equal in combat on average without changing biological trends might be to have that culture on a whole favor weapons that rely less on strength.

 

[Nihal]

That men are better fighters than women because they're men is a stereotype, yes.

I could argue that it's an actual fact that women have an increased peripheral vision compared to men. Therefore, they would be harder to flank. Therefore, they would also be able to specifically flank men easily. Women are said to be able to process more information at the same time. So, they would be able to flank men dazed by the battle who can only see forward. See?

Those said facts don't give automatic win to anyone.

Here you are disregarding completely training, situation and specialization. You're also overlooking individual differences. Battle isn't only about who is stronger. And saying you changed the rules of your world so women can stand a chance vs the "faster and stronger" men sounds condescending, at best.

P.s.: You're also seem to be confusing adrenaline with testosterone.

 

[Mindfire]

The way you say women are trained to be 'more aggressive' implies that the men are trained to be 'less aggressive' than them to the point of it being a disadvantage against them - how is that not giving the men who are supposed to go to war suboptimal training?

You're... not quite getting what I'm saying. Perhaps Kit can explain? Each child is trained from toddler-cy to maximize their combat potential by taking advantage of their physique's natural strengths. Naturally fast people are trained to rely on speed and agility, strong people are trained to rely on strength, etc. Since on average, women are smaller than men it logically follows that they will be trained on average to be faster and more aggressive.

Also, men are naturally faster than women although you could change this for your setting, but you should probably make that clear somehow.

This is a fantasy universe in which people can transform into cats, create fire with their minds, use their swords to channel lightning bolts, and summon eldritch demons to consume their enemies at the cost of their own sanity. Real world biology matters only inasmuch as I say it does.

 

[glutton]

That men are better fighters than women because they're men is a stereotype, yes.

I could argue that it's an actual fact that women have an increased peripheral vision compared to men. Therefore, they would be harder to flank. Therefore, they would also be able to specifically flank men easily. Women are said to be able to process more information at the same time. So, they would be able to flank men dazed by the battle who can only see forward. See?

Those said facts don't give automatic win to anyone.

Here you are disregarding completely training, situation and specialization. You're also overlooking individual differences. Battle isn't only about who is stronger. And saying you changed the rules of your world so women can stand a chance vs the "faster and stronger" men sounds condescending, at best.

The discussion was about one on one combat and Mindfire's proposition of women being faster than men in general...

I didn't change the rules so the women could stand a chance against the stronger and faster men, I changed them so they could be as physically strong as and perform equal feats of monster strength as the strongest men in their world, who are also stronger than any real man could be and chuck around boulders and such. Of course a woman could kill any real man with a weapon or even without one if they could hit them in the right spot, like biting out their throat or something. What you're criticizing is the 'flavor' of my work which emphasizes impossible feats of strength and toughness.

I didn't just want my 'strong' heroines to be able to beat men, but to be on the same physical level as 7' 400 male mountains of muscle and clash with them toe to toe, lock arms with them, trade dozens of punches with them, etc. I think that does require some changing of rules.

 

[glutton]

This is a fantasy universe in which people can transform into cats, create fire with their minds, use their swords to channel lightning bolts, and summon eldritch demons to consume their enemies at the cost of their own sanity. Real world biology matters only inasmuch as I say it does.

Then that's fine, I was just checking if you were aware of the facts of our universe.

With regard to the aggressiveness I thought you meant 'more ruthless', if you just mean they take advantage of their speed more by constantly attacking and not letting up that's fine too.

 

[Zero Angel]

That men are better fighters than women because they're men is a stereotype, yes.

I could argue that it's an actual fact that women have an increased peripheral vision compared to men. Therefore, they would be harder to flank. Therefore, they would also be able to specifically flank men easily. Women are said to be able to process more information at the same time. So, they would be able to flank men dazed by the battle who can only see forward. See?

Those said facts don't give automatic win to anyone.

Here you are disregarding completely training, situation and specialization. You're also overlooking individual differences. Battle isn't only about who is stronger. And saying you changed the rules of your world so women can stand a chance vs the "faster and stronger" men sounds condescending, at best.

P.s.: You're also seem to be confusing adrenaline with testosterone.

Nihal, I don't think he said that men were better fighters on average (if so, maybe I missed it), but he said basically what you said in regards to peripheral vision. Studies have been done that show that women on average have better peripheral vision and multitasking ability and similar studies have been done that show that men are on average larger and stronger than women. The danger is saying that means one or the other wins automatically on average, but again, unless I've missed it, I don't think he's said that. Also, there is the concern that the reason these studies show these things is because of societal causes and upbringing as opposed to biology.

I am fairly certain that it is a scientific fact that there is a positive correlation between testosterone and muscle mass, which is one reason why body builders take testosterone. And that there is a positive correlation between possessing a Y chromosome and the body's generation of testosterone. So, at least based on science (which is never THAT trustworthy, especially when it comes to basing stuff off statistics), one can argue that men are on average stronger than women.

Which I believe was his point.

Although I also believe that there are a few issues with semantics. Namely, "faster". When Mindfire is describing his women as being faster fighters, I'm thinking of quickness. I.e. rapid attacks. When glutton is speaking of "faster", I picture a bull charging or a lineman in American football jumping off the line of scrimmage. I don't think that testosterone causes explosiveness, but the aforementioned muscle mass can help with that.

Still, as someone that fights with mock medieval weapons regularly, I'd rather fight an explosive fighter than a fast fighter. Explosive fighters you just have to direct/shunt off the explosion, whereas fast fighters are in and out and unless you are able to overwhelm them, they're going to be hitting you regularly. If they're hitting you with a knife or a sword like that, then you're dead.