81

@Havenstone
This could just be part of my training, but I find any society which ends up creating characters incongruent from its own cultural mold to be jarring. If an aristocratic woman is raised from birth to wear a wimple and curtsy and get married off at 14 and never learns otherwise, she’s not going to run away from home, buy armour and become an adventurer. A peasant boy won’t wander off to become a knight, he wouldn’t even see himself and a knight as the same species (probably because he would have only seen maybe one or two knights in his entire life), because that’s how society has moulded him. To me, there’s a simple cause and effect here: societal conditions = character’s mindset. This is why it *has* taken centuries for Western civilization to claw itself up to a point approaching gender-equality, and why it’ll take another few generations to actually get there.

That being said, though, I have put some thought into a setting which is as close to a standard high fantasy setting as possible, but with enough subtle changes to allow men and women equal rights, both under the law and in conception. It took some mental legwork, but the end product really isn’t that different.

Lastly, I’d like to note that *we* don’t live in a gender equal society, and if an author’s going to create a world which has entrenched gender-equality, I’d like to see at least some indication of the minor things: wedding vows, creation myths, female religious leaders, or maybe something like girls being told that “no man will accept the advances of a woman who cannot defend their home alongside him.”

1 Like
82

I just read something interesting that I suddenly connected with this conversation.

We look at history and we see that men make up most of all military forces, and then we extrapolate why. We look at how men are bigger and stronger, and we assume that is why. We see men wanting to keep women out of violent conflicts and we assume it’s practicality, it has to do with the fit of the armor or their physical strength, or a desire to consolidate power in a single sex.

But consider this: for many women, childbirth was deadly. At its worst, 1 in 5 pregnancies would result in the mother’s death. So we have… oh, every historical culture on the planet being full of men who have lost mothers, sisters, daughters and wives to something bloody and uncontrollable. Sending the same women off to war was a sort of double jeopardy for the entire culture.

It probably isn’t a coincidence or a throwaway convenience that many of the egalitarian fantasy cultures I’ve encountered have had nearly perfect, easily available birth control and medical care that matches or exceeds what we had in the late 19th century. Depending on how you interpret the cultural motivations that evolved patriarchies, those two things could be all that is needed.

Anyhow, just tossing that out there as something else to think about and another perspective on the origins of the lack of historical equality.

83

@Chrysoula I think those physical attributes are a little too prominent to dismiss as a causation/correlation fallacy. I mean, there are situations where the victory of a conquering army would mean the annihilation of the civilian population, and still you’d seldom see a woman bearing arms - I don’t think adding to the risk of childbirth would be on people’s minds in those occasions; it really does boil down to simple physical aptitude. (In many societies, polygamy was established simply because of the high mortality rate of the male population relative to that of the female.)

And the tidy, egalitarian environment of much fantasy worlds probably reduces to peoples desire, - or assumed desire, - to experience a not-too-imperfect, or lighthearted world. Hence, you’re unlikely to see someone dying of gangrene; health potions and all that, all very nice and pleasant.

And good lord don’t remind me about the vulgar notion of “Patriarchy”.

84

@Chrysoula From a natural selection perspective, I agree. Societies that sent their women out to fight would be at a disadvantage in terms of population replacement against those who didn’t. Repopulation is much more dependent on the number of fertile women present in a population then the on the amount of fertile men. Even in societies that weren’t polygamous, adultery was almost always defined as sex between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. The man’s marital status was immaterial. There was nothing preventing those widowed women from bedding their handsome, but often married, neighbors. This allowed for quick population replacement when the adult male population was decimated during war. Societies that sent out a large proportion of their adult female population to fight would thus be at a disadvantage over the long term against those who didn’t.

And yes, I too have noticed the coincidence that many of the egalitarian fantasy cultures also have “nearly perfect, easily available birth control and medical care that matches or exceeds what we had in the late 19th century”. This is almost always hand-waved as “herbs” or “magic”. They also tend to hold 21st century view points on a host of issues from slavery to gender equality and gay rights. All these details tend to get hand-waved as if medieval society is somehow conducive to such modern values. This in my humble opinion is sloppy world-building, and I tend to find such poorly constructed worlds dull and boring. The names of the characters may change, but they all seem to follow very similar B movie scripts.

@Drazen I’m not dismissing the significant size and strength differences between men and women as a major factor in why men have traditionally done the fighting in virtually all societies. I doubt however that it’s the only reason. Men don’t really want to die any more than women do. It’s unlikely that they’d happily take all of the risk upon themselves just because they’re bigger and stronger. There are other factors involved as well.

Regarding defending against conquerors, humans are creatures of habit and human societies even more so. It isn’t easy for people to throw off decades of cultural programming that they’ve internalized, even in a crisis, especially while authority figures are still present to enforce cultural norms. Those authority figures must be willing to accept and promote that change first. And even then not everyone will jump to adopt that change. Many will prefer to run away if they can, or to die as they are.

85

@P_Tigras I’m curious, what are these fantasy books you’re reading that have an egalitarian view of gay rights? Or are you just speaking of Choice games?

86

@FairyGodfeather Works by Mercedes Lackey immediately come to mind. And yes, some Choice games come to mind as well, especially Affairs of the Court. While I applaud the authors for attempting to be more inclusive, I found the way they went about it to be rather arbitrary, and not always well thought out.

I should add a caveat to what I wrote above on the subject of gay rights. Most fantasy novels are silent on the subject of gay rights. So I can understand why someone who feels personally connected to the subject would take issue with my previous statement. My complaint isn’t against a fantasy society that is accepting of gays however, but a near utopian medieval European society that inexplicably matches modern values.

87

@P_Tigras

Actually I was curious since I’ve been doing my best to read whatever fantasy books I can find that actually includes GBLTQ characters. In most fantasy books the existence of non-heterosexual people is completely erased. They just don’t exist, they’re not even considered. It wasn’t intended as an accusation against you, I was genuinely curious if you had any examples I’d not heard of so I could get my hands on those books.

Those utopias are just so hard to get hold of.

Mercedes Lackey’s Valdemar world is homophobic. All of her gay characters experience homophobia. The only society she has which accepts the gay/bisexual characters are the Tayledras people, and they’re not Medieval-European based.

I’ve not read all of her books in other worlds.

Incidentally do you have issues with the reverse, where societies that are shown to be more tolerant of certain varieties of same-sex love are portrayed to be homophobic?

Ahhh. Affairs of the Court. I suppose I have a love/dislike relationship with the game. I love that it exists. I could never really wrap my head around the idea that I was playing anyone but Marie Antoinette though. It felt like a paper-thin genderswap to me on the protagonist. Now that may be because I have never, ever had any desire to have children so all the “babies!” stuff struck me badly.

And the whole magically conceiving a child I just didn’t get. Why would the King/Queen do that? Why wouldn’t they just keep doing it with their spouse until they got the magical baby they wanted? Why didn’t they just magic up a baby with some life mage? Why would that child have the same ties to their parents when? Ugh no I just didn’t understand the whole magical babies thing and it hurts my head trying to think about it in any degree of detail. I’d have gone for adopting, or surrogates.

Although I had no problems at all with the same-sex relationships being okay, especially since there was a method of having children. It’s just… I didn’t understand that method in the slightest.

And I did like that Choice of Romance exists.

But I suppose I’m getting slightly off topic.

88

@FairyGodfeather Your perspective is very different from mine, and no less valid. So I find this exchange illuminating.

I agree that non-heterosexual people are completely absent from most fantasy books, including ones with semi-utopias. Here I am complaining about a baking technique that only produces half-loaves while some people are so starved that half a loaf is better than no loaves at all. So I completely understand why you’re having difficulties finding those utopias which are gay-inclusive. Finding books that depict the transgendered in a positive light is even more difficult yet. I’m reminded of how Matthew (aka “Blossom”) from Weis & Hickman’s Rose of the Prophet was a nod to the transgendered that had to be carefully broached back in the late 80’s to avoid a mainstream backlash.

Your issues with Affairs of the Court are pretty much the same as mine. The genderswap is paper-thin. The “babies!” stuff doesn’t bother me, but the whole magically conceiving a child thing made no sense to me either. It’s like they bolted it on to the game for the sake of trying to look inclusive by allowing gay couples to have biological children without bothering to give any thought to how it might work. And that’s precisely the sort of sloppiness that I’m complaining about.

I also like that CoR exists, and I like the game overall, I just thought it didn’t make much sense for the protagonist to be given no choice but to marry when the world is gender-equal and other options should therefore be open to you, just as de Mendosa demonstrates. It’s the sloppy world-building I have an issue with though, not the gender equality.

BTW, I’m not sure I understand your question regarding “societies that are shown to be more tolerant of certain varieties of same-sex love and are portrayed to be homophobic”. Umm…aren’t societies tolerant of same-sex love by definition not homophobic?

89

@P_Tigras

I can’t think of a single fantasy book I’ve read where a transgender character has been depicted in a positive light in a manner which I have no issues with. T is frequently the silent letter included at the end of GLBT as a nod to inclusivity without ever acknowledging that it’s rarely actually included. It’s easier to just use the genderqueer label. I have read some books with interesting gender-queer characters.

Transgender characters usually only ever appear in games if they’re intended to be a joke, or brutally murdered.

That’s probably a different topic though.

I have found a handful of series which are in worlds where there is no prejudice. I can’t think of any of them where it feels unrealistic to me.

That’s not including m/m or f/f genres which I don’t think count. They’re far less about the realism and it’s one of my problems with the genre.

Yeah, I would have liked a little more thought on the conception. I’d have liked the idea followed through on. For something that is such a big plot point the introduction of creating babies through life-magic seemed to completely destroy that. I do not understand why the Monarch would not just keep creating magical babies until a worthy heir was made.

Unless this ritual drained some of their life force, their very essence, it was exhausting and draining, perhaps even painful and life-threatening using that sort of magic. Both partners would need time to recover from the ritual. That they needed a willing woman (in the case of a male couple) or to choose one of them (in the case of a female couple) to carry the child. I would have added that two women could only have daughters.

And why is the monarch pulling in favours to create a child with someone they are not married to? I suppose the having children is an expression of love. Surely their spouse would not be happy at all. In fact why wouldn’t they be conducting that ritual with their spouse instead. I don’t think the option to have a child with the monarch if you’re not married should have been available if you’re in a same sex relationship.

I also didn’t understand that if the Monarch is female why was one of her children considered a bastard?

I would have liked the idea explored in a bit more depth. I think it could have been made to work if it had been though about enough. But it just didn’t work for me.

I agree with the marrying too. It didn’t make sense to me either that we were sent to court, forced to marry when we could have just made our own fortune. Be that with Mendosa, or by using our political wiles at court, or whatever. I actually wish we could have been more instrumental in Mendosa’s ending.

I do like the game. I agree with you on the world-building.