Of course, when you’re writing a historical fiction, anything your character does can diverge from history since they didn’t historically exist and so from the moment of their existence history started to change due to their influence. 
@Havenstone I agree that there are pitfalls in every direction. Nevertheless, I guess I’m Mr. Long In The Wind, because my favorite stories fall into category 3.2. They can be something of a challenge to successfully write, but when done well, I find them to be the most compelling stories of all.
@P_Tigras, Me too. Both in terms of preference, and (definitely) Long-Windedness.
And yet I’m on board with @Canisa and @ScarletGeisha in enjoying escapist fantasy without sexism – and I’m sure that if I were female, I’d enjoy it even more. Sure, it’s a big plus for me when the writer has thought through the social dynamics that produced patriarchy in our world, and given some reasons why their fantasy world evolved differently. But it’s a plus in the same way that a fantasy world that makes some kind of geological sense is a plus – nice, admirable, but not necessary for my enjoyment, and only one of many factors that help me immerse in an imaginary world.
I’m sure that’s in part because I don’t believe that gender roles or gender inequalities are “natural” results of biological differences. I believe a world of equal power, respect, and opportunity between the sexes is possible (and hope we’re getting closer to it), so it doesn’t totally blow my suspension of disbelief when I see it in a fantasy world, the way it seems to for some others.
1 Like
@Havenstone You’re quite the diplomat. I don’t have an issue with escapist fantasy that is humorous and doesn’t take itself too seriously. All too often escapist fantasy loses sight of the fact that it’s supposed to be escapist however. Then I either feel like I’m reading the same old trite fantasy story for the 1,000th time, just written by a different author (yes I’ve read thousands of novels in my time), or I feel that I’ve left Planet Earth and made a wrong turn into the author’s personal wish fulfillment fantasy where the laws of nature only apply when its convenient for the author. And instead of losing myself in a fun novel, I feel like I’m suddenly learning things about the author only his or her therapist should probably know.
I do have to disagree with your assertion that gender inequalities aren’t based on biological differences. There are two big biological reasons for gender inequality. The first reason for gender inequality is the inability of men to authoritively determine the paternity of children. If there had been a way to authoritatively check paternity before the advent of genetic testing, men would have had far less reason to restrict the freedom of women. The second reason is that because they’re bigger and stronger, men were able to, for the most part, succeed at restricting the freedom of their mates. It also didn’t hurt that in a time when laws were weak or non-existent, women were dependent upon their male kin for protection from marauding males outside their kin group. So women generally went along with the restrictions on their own freedom to avoid a potentially even worse fate.
That said, I do agree that a world of equal power, respect and opportunity is possible. I just don’t think such times are likely to last very long in a world where men are physically stronger, laws are weak to non-existent, and men have no other way to ensure the paternity of their children beyond restricting the freedom of their mates.
@P_Tigras, shall I pretend that’s a compliment? I’m not trying to butter up both sides --I genuinely do like complex, “Category 3.2” stories, and also escapism that chooses what bits of the “real world” it wants to focus on and ditches the rest. I don’t see a need to choose.
I’m broadly skeptical of sociobiological explanations (not just for sex roles). They often contain social arguments smuggled in wearing evolutionary fancy-dress, and most are too absolute, struggling to accommodate the necessary real-world exceptions. For example, there have been and still are many matrilineal societies, all of which need special explanation if men’s anxiety to prove paternity is a fundamental determinant of gender relations (as opposed to one factor among many).
The idea that patriarchy was near-inevitable because of men’s greater average physical strength also relies too much (to my mind) on the Hobbesian myth that social relations were formed in a lawless state where might made right. I’d suggest that patriarchies grew, thrived, and took over the world not as a defense against widespread anarchy, but in highly lawful and organized societies which justified and enforced their restrictions through elaborate ideological structures (not through who had the biggest muscles).
And the weakening of patriarchal institutions didn’t coincide with genetic testing (it started well before that, thank goodness) or any change in average physical strength between the sexes, but in changing ideas and sociopolitical institutions – in particular, the Enlightenment challenge to old ideas of what was “natural.”
So overall, I don’t deny the biological facts you mention, nor other human sexual dimorphisms. I just think our environment and social institutions largely determine the impact of those biological facts, and have historically done so in a variety of ways. It’s not hard for me to imagine a civilization, even a historical one, that dealt with those facts in a much more just and egalitarian way – particularly in a world, where, say, magical powers available to both sexes have provided a strong military and economic leveling factor a few centuries earlier than on our benighted globe. Your thoughts?
@P_Tigras I have to argue about biological differences in being a factor in why patriarchal/matriarchal societies develop. While they may have a factor in how they develop, that fact that we’ve seen so many matriarchal societies through out the world disprove that biology has any factor in spreading it (in fact we can probably say that matriarchal societies are the ‘norm’ as, outside of influence from other societies, they have proven to be the most likely to develop). It’s actual stem is from Mesopotamia, the cradle of ‘civilization’ also being the birthplace of sexism (including binary gender concepts), racism and homophobia. They then proceeded to attach themselves to the various religions in the area and spread though that vector.
@Haven There is no need to pretend it was a compliment. It really was one. Perhaps it was a little grudging since you found a way to agree with both sides at the same time 
, but that didn’t make it any less genuine.
It does appear that you enjoy some types of stories I do not. C’est la vie.
I tend to be wary of sociobiological explanations as well. So I can readily understand your skepticism.
I should note that matrilineal societies can be patriarchal as well. Ancient Egypt is an excellent example of that. Property passed through the female, so it was fairly common for brothers to marry their sisters, cousins to marry cousins, uncles to marry nieces and even on occasion, fathers to marry their own daughters, to keep the property in the family. So what might start out as a more gender-equal society can later be hijacked by powerful enough men who are partial to their own children or whose sisters have simply been unable to produce heirs of their own.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that men’s desire to prove paternity is the fundamental determinant of gender relations, and like you, I consider it but one factor among many. Nevertheless it is a highly important factor, and one that weighs heavily on a lot of men, although by no means all men. Sexual jealousy has existed for longer than humans have been humans, and it’s often more instinctive than rational, a force capable of driving otherwise reasonable individuals to homicidal rage. Can it be overcome? Certainly. But what if a powerful man believes he has reason not to trust his spouse? What is there to stop a King in a land where he is the law from restricting his spouse’s freedom? Her kin could protest, but if he is sufficiently more powerful, then they are unlikely to risk death by protesting too loudly. And once the ruler sets a precedent, others are likely to follow it as well.
His son, or possibly his sister’s son, may be different when he rules, and power may flow back into a more gender equal alignment. So in less formalized times, the power of women was anything but stable. It waxed and waned. Some obtained great power in their own right while others suffered terrible abuses. Nevertheless If a precedent is copied by enough important people and followed for enough decades to become a cultural norm, the majority of men and women both would accept and take for granted that its best for society if women confirmed to the norm. Some of those restricted by the societal norm might chafe, but they’d swiftly be shown their place, often by other women. Women can be pretty brutal in policing each other’s behavior.
I’d argue that the first blows against patriarchy came well before even the Enlightenment. The Renaissance and the rise of nation states brought several ruling Queens into Europe after primogeniture was weakened. Unlike in the past few centuries, rule didn’t automatically pass to their husbands, or uncles and cousins. They didn’t rule on behalf of their sons. Both Isobela and Elizabeth ruled in their own names, and they ruled very well. And if women could run countries superbly, then why couldn’t they legally run their own households too? A new precedent was set, or more like, an old one rediscovered. In addition, the Law had grown sufficiently powerful that it was enforced by a strong legal bureaucracy and even powerful men had difficulty totally ignoring it. The power of the state grew even as the power of the old nobility waned. This protected the property rights of widows and heiresses, when they finally achieved them, from those men who wanted to seize their assets through force of arms. To say things were entirely fair would be completely untrue, but the lot of women in Europe was now slowly improving. Then the enlightenment arrived and the rate of change accelerated.
Your comments remind me of the old nature vs nurture question regarding human behavior and gender differences. Where you don’t deny that nature plays a sizable role, I don’t deny that nurture plays a sizable role either. I do think that humans are selfish, jealous creatures unless they learn to be otherwise. This is not to say that I believe we’re naturally evil, only that we don’t innately consider the potential harm our actions do to others, even when we use physical force, until we learn to place ourselves in the shoes of others. This applies to both sexes equally. It’s just that men have a bit more force to throw around, and for hormonal reasons, are generally a little more quick to inflict it. Nevertheless as is often the case when speaking of generalities, there are also some women out there who are worse than most men.
I certainly agree that magic can serve as a gender-equalizer in a fantasy setting, or even flip the gender power dynamic if women are given a monopoly on it.
@Reaperoa I suppose it depends on how you define a matriarchal society, but there are very few documented matriarchal societies in the sense we generally think of them, ie. true rulership, not just symbolic power, over a large group of people, both men and women, being passed from woman to woman over numerous generations. And I have to disagree with your assertion that such matriarchies were once the norm in the real world. That idea, while popular on the internet, appears to be based more on wishful revisionist thinking than the historical or anthropological record. I never said that they could not or did not occur however.
@Shoelip: “Yes, but if she gets killed or arrested in her current job, or her employers decide to be stingy, the effect is the same.”. That’s the same in any job. Why would she be arrested for no reason?
Well, for one thing she’s a prostitute. But I don’t think getting arrested is very likely in this neighborhood anyway.
That’s what I meant. Her employers could fire her, though.
Okay people, listen up. Let’s define what escapism is.
Escapism: A fantasy. Really. What it is meant is to bring people into a world of action and adventure and make them feel good about themselves. Realistic social conventions has nothing to do with it (especially when so many of these things which claim to be realistic are operatinig under simplified kyriarchal assumptions and desires). As long as it makes the audience feel awesome about themselves by imagining and relating or identifying with the adventures of the heroes, it is escapism.
Realism isn’t the issue. WHO the audience IS, that is the issue.
As it stands, escapism has an overwhelming tendency to appeal to the privileged. Sure in a perfect world, it wouldn’t matter because we would all cheer for the hero but don’t kid yourself. When a tool meant to make us feel good continues to depict one standard, it starts to have an effect on those of us who don’t receive those privileges.
@ScarletGeisha I’m inclined to agree with you. Escapism by its nature white-washes aspects of both human nature and human interaction for the convenience of the author and those readers who feel similarly. This includes, but is not limited to, any kyriarchal assumptions and desires the author has internalized and does not wish challenged.
@P_Tigras I think you might have misunderstood why we prefer to have our entertainment free of kyriarchal concepts. It is not, in fact, because we have internalised them and do not want them challenged. The exact opposite is true. We recognise that they should be external from society, and choose to challenge them by not depicting them. Instead of saying ‘Look how terrible this society that runs on this idea is’, we instead say ‘Look how much better this society that is free of this idea is’.
Rather than offering constant criticism with no suggestions for improvement, we instead attempt provide an alternative way of doing things through the medium of entertainment. I hope this helps clear things up.
@Canisa I find the concept of an entirely kyriarchy-free society highly attractive, and more inclusive than ones wherein only the individual author’s personal pet issues are dealt with in such a non-judgmental manner. Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me why stories free of kyriarchal concepts aren’t just a different sort of escapism, one tailored for those who feel as strongly as you do that such concepts shouldn’t be depicated.
Given how we human beings reflexively define ourselves by the groups to which we belong, and those to which we do not, kyriarchy is pretty much guaranteed to creep in there based on how the in-power and out-of-power groups define themselves. Human beings gravitate towards those with whom they have the most in common, and that means people most like themselves. Just look at the self-selected seating arrangements at a high school or college cafeteria. And just by associating with the society’s other leaders, an in-group is created even if they didn’t start out as members of the same group. How does one therefore create an entirely kyriarchy free society that doesn’t come across as absurd to most readers?
Gather up a large group of people from wildly different backgrounds in a small area where there is no law and you don’t get an egalitarian society where all are respected, instead you get the New Orleans Superdome right after Hurricane Katrina.
A totally kyriarchy-free society thus strikes me as a wonderful utopia filled with unicorns and rainbows, except for the evil villains who are attempting to ruin it for everyone else. While I laud the idea in principle, it really doesn’t sound that much different from escapism to me.
Hm, something interesting about this topic I noticed. Unlike other discussions there doesn’t seem to be a lot of “on this side there is this idea, and on the other side, 180 degrees away, there is this idea”. Instead there is a lot of ‘we kinda agree in concept, but details and personal tastes put us at right angles and 45 degrees and all sorts of variations there of’.
@Canisa That actually does help to clarify why our tastes are so different. It’s ultimately (at its heart) the battle of the idealist vs the cynic.
@P_Tigras In response to your third paragraph, isn’t that situation at least partially applicable to here too? I mean, were from all over the world, with huge differences between all of us (Socio-economic/Political/Physical/Mental/Emotional). While not pure anarchy (there is a rudimentary hierarchy), we’re pretty lawless here.
@Reaperoa We’re also all pretty much equal here with the exception of the forum owners who keep a gentle hand on the till. Both the ability and incentive to victimize each other on this forum is pretty limited. I’m not saying that you or I would behave that way if given the opportunity, but that people do exist who would, and should they be successful, then their numbers will grow.
As far as the bigger picture you’ve drawn regarding this topic is concerned, I agree. There does appear to be kind of an agreement in concept, but details and personal tastes put us at right angles often times.
As I’ve said before, realism is not the matter. You can have all the historical accurate social norms you want but as long as it serves as a power fantasy, it is still escapism.
It’s all about how the author wishes it to be, there are lines, such as rape or the glorification of sexism or racism, which an author should not put in unless truly needed, but it’s still the authors choice.
@ScarletGeisha
Escapism seems opinionated to me.
Some people would like to escape this planet into a fairy tale world.
Others would like to escape to another time period in general.
To be immersed in any of those, you need some sort of facts that the player can believe in to ground him(her)self into this new world and just… grow.
Vendetta is, literally, perfect in my explanation. I know it’s a little sensitive to bring it up after past events, but I believe we deserve a chance to redeem ourselves and show that we don’t have to be fierce and harmful in our discussions to get our points across.
I escape INTO the era he weaves. There was such thing as the ‘Black Hand’ in mafia groups, but they aren’t a group [which is what a quickly searched google result yielded to me] It was a type of extortion Mafia groups practiced. But that’s the key.
The time period is accurate, while the actions aren’t.
Of course, the inaccurate actions can be made by a female just due to the fact that if it’s inaccurate, why not?
Well, that’d be essentially trading accuracy for…(lack of a better word, so take this word seriously)… fun.
Realistic fiction? I will still count that as escapism, tyvm.
Just my two cents. Been quiet on the forums for a long time.