The fallacy of basing fantasy on our history

[Arthmail]

So, this is partly a look at women in fantasy. I know it has been beat to death before, especially in the Bakker threads, but i've been doing some reading that warrents a return to this subject. Of course, it can be directly applied to other areas where fantasy authors steal swathes of historical points without perhaps fully understanding the reasons why.

Now, i'm reading a book called: The Civilization of the Middle Ages, by Norman Cantor. Its a remarkable book, if a little dry, dealing with the rise of the Catholic church during the roman empire and beyond. Now, i reached a page that struck me as particularily interesting. In Frankish society, previoius to the year 700, women enjoyed a considerable amount of freedom compared to other nations. These were of course noble women, or freeman, soldiers, and landlords - not serfs. According to the book these women: "were more independant of their fathers and brothers, more capable of making decisions about their lives, and allowed to hold landed property and to play a role in political life than in Roman times." The women of the Merovingian family, the royal Frankish family, were equally capable of violence and scheming as their male couterparts.

This independence faded with the continued growth of the catholic church, which wanted women chaste and virginial and useless. The church also worked to encourage wealthy women, such as the sisters of kings, to start nunnery's with their wealth, thereby increasing the wealth of the church.

So, all of that being said, i return to the topic of women in fantasy. Often we want to see reflections of our world in the books that we read. But how worthy a source is that without the institutions around that helped to shape our world. Without a Catholic church, why could women not have found greater independence sooner? If there is magic, why would technology advance the same way?

I think without a simliar institution as the church in a fantasy world, at least in a fantasy society based upon the western world, chances would be good for strong and independent women that actually make sense within the context of the world and the story.

Thoughts?

[Contrarius]

Without a Catholic church, why could women not have found greater independence sooner?

I don't know that I have any *useful* thoughts, but IMHO it's a huge mistake to blame the subjugation of women as a whole on the Catholic church. No Catholic church was required in places like China or Japan or the mid-East to subjugate women, after all. In fact, in a significant way, it seems that the countries that DID have Catholicism (European) were the ones that granted women more equality sooner.

(No, I'm not Catholic.)

edited to add -- IMHO the subjugation of women has more to do with issues of strength (strength necessary to survive) and reproduction (men making sure that children carry their DNA, ensuring the continuation of the line and so on) than religion. Religion may be a proximate cause of the subjugation, but IMHO the survival and repro issues are the ultimate causes. When societies evolve to a point at which physical strength and reproduction are no longer such essential factors, then women tend to gain more independence. That is not ALWAYS the case, since there were a few primitive matriarchal societies, but I believe it is more often the case than not.

[Ouroboros]

For a start, read a more credible historian than Norman Cantor. There are so many things wrong with the way he views 'history', and half his content is opinion and educated invention rather than solid, historical fact. He has the most rudimentary understanding of the evolution of the Christian churches, and barely grasps the complexity of European society as a whole. He's the worst kind of cherry picker.

In short: I did not like his book.

[Prince Alexander]

Absolutely, though it's not just the Catholic church. Russian Orthodox church, for example, inflicted a slew of rules upon women (even silly things like a woman can't butcher a chicken, so they have to go outside and ask random men).

Besides the church, I'd say the other big one is male fraternity, typical in ASOIAF. I think males have a tendency to aggregate and fraternize and exclude women by definition, which gives them sort of "networking power" over women, as opposed to women's historical role as homemaker/nurturer who has a few friends at best. Obviously things are a little more equal now.

Last big one is making babies and the high mortality rates during childbirth. I'd say this one obviously disempowers women and would in any society without a decent health care system / family planning tools.

So while church is a big one, there are other factors. Personally, I draw heavily from the Russian history... it's pretty rich with some gender power struggles, my favorite being:

http://en.wikipedia....yevna_of_Russia

The title picture is pretty tame, by the way, the more famous painting of her is:

http://ru.wikipedia....:Sofiarepin.jpg

By one account, while imprisoned, Sophia was allowed 3 "buckets" of vodka per day. Not sure how large the buckets were or why this is relevant, but still.

As with everything in history, a lot of perspectives. I think best fantasy incorporates just that... a lot of perspectives :)

[MinDonner]

Agreed about Cantor, though I've not read that particular book (In the Wake of the Plague was full of embarrassingly basic errors).

However, it's a fair point that the vast majority of fantasy "based" on real history is no such thing; it's too often just cobbled together out of Renaissance Faire cliches with a bit of magic thrown in and no thought to how their different worldbuilding setup would change matters on a larger scale. One egregious example is Naomi Novik - yes, it was fun to see what the Napoleonic Wars would have been like with added dragons, but scratch the surface even superficially and you start wondering how the FUCK the world looked even remotely like the real one by that stage, with added dragons.

[Lummel]

Read somebody other than Norman Cantor.

What he says about Merovingian France comes from Gregory of Tours (directly or indirectly). If we had no Gregory of Tours and relied only upon Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People then you would come to the conclusion that it was only through the church that women gained status, respect and a voice in public affairs.

The church bears out exactly what Min said - historically a hugely influentual institution with hugely powerful institutional figures (cardinals, bishops, priors, abbesses and various kinds of holy men and women) that mixed up social classes, provided education, inspired rebellion and revolt - but not the kind of thing you see in fantasy. In terms of attitudes fantasy characters seem a fairly modern bunch - rare to find some who are religious or superstitious even when there are actual gods knocking about.

Magic is an interesting one. If by magic you can make iron objects cheaper than a blacksmith then presumably there aren't going to be many blacksmiths around or if you can change grain into flour by magic why build a mill? I'm pretty quickly imaging a world that is very much poorer and more primitive than our one. If your magic is destructive and powerful in war then presumably magicians are going to dominate politically.

I'd ask a different question: what does it mean for a woman to be strong and independent in your fantasy society? What might drive it? Magical contraceptives? Matrilineal families and inheritance? Polyandry?

Off topic, or maybe not, the merovingians were the long haired kings of france. The kings (there were a bunch of them) wore their hair long - if it was cut off they lost their royal power (which tragically was what happened to the last merovingian king while he was being driven about paris on an ox cart, a very sad but bloodless coup.) Minor male members of the royal family if they wanted to revolt would go off and try and grow their hair in secret while the established kings would have the hair of their rivals cut to destroy their power bases. Quite seriously, and I've yet to come across anything as incredibly bizarre in fantasy.

[Galactus]

The church was actually a much more complex organization RE: women's rights than might be thought of.

Y'see, part of the issue is a collective vs. familial dynamic, "traditional" germanic society (and by extension the secular aristocracy) was very family-oriented. Women (and men) were to a large degree considered to be property of the family. (or rather, extensions of it) hence women were occasionally granted positions of power when there was no suitable male of the right family around: Family trumped gender in these instances.

On the other hand, this also meant that the individual's ability to act in a way that was contrary to familial interest was extremely limited. The most obvious aspect here is marriage.

Now, here comes the catholic church, with a much more individualistic viewpoint, where each human being stands in some way in a relationship with God (albeit mediated by the clergy) they are much more interested in each person's individual moral character and decisions. The Catholic Church is the institution that insists (and by and large manages to implement) the idea that marriage is a contract between the two parties and God, that it cannot be entered into without consent and cannot be dissolved. Now there is the option (which might still get you a fair amount of censure from your family of course) of simply refusing a marriage you do not like. And there's no legal way of marrying you so long as you persist.

And people did take advantage of this. There are records of people just simply refusing to marry, and/or seeking asylum at a monastery (not neccessarily taking any vows, but just spending time there until the family relents)

And that's without getting into the fact that the church allowed an alternate method of social advancement and prestige for women (two, actually, the more "steady" path of becoming a nun/abbess and the more radical one of becoming a hermit)

[Spring Bass]

edited to add -- IMHO the subjugation of women has more to do with issues of strength (strength necessary to survive) and reproduction (men making sure that children carry their DNA, ensuring the continuation of the line and so on) than religion. Religion may be a proximate cause of the subjugation, but IMHO the survival and repro issues are the ultimate causes. When societies evolve to a point at which physical strength and reproduction are no longer such essential factors, then women tend to gain more independence.

More specifically, it seems to be tied into high birth rates, food production, and high early childhood mortality rates in primitive agrarian societies. If one-fourth to one-third of your children are (on average) going to die before the age of five, you end up with reproductive strategies that favor higher birth rates. That in turn hinders women, since they are (usually) less capable of farm work and other economic output while pregnant, and they're pregnant a lot (the average spacing between children in agrarian societies is two years, compared to four years among hunter-gatherers).

Now, in practice, you get variations. Some societies have harsher customs than others, like coverture in the UK (wherein women effectively ceased to exist as legal entities upon marriage), Purdah in many muslim societies, and others. These seem to be heavily shaped by culture, and particularly the idiosyncracies of particular societies (5th century Athens had something like purdah for "proper women", while Spartan women were supposedly raised to be more outspoken and active). Even so, there is still the general trend of women being pushed into roles surrounding the bearing and raising of children, particularly amongst farmers.

Any sort of magic that makes food production much easier, increases women's economic contribution in primitive societies, and/or decreases the infant mortality rate significantly is going to go a long way towards making women's status better off in your fantasy society. Cultural institutions will still matter, but I believe the economics would eventually reshape the culture.

I'm pretty quickly imaging a world that is very much poorer and more primitive than our one. If your magic is destructive and powerful in war then presumably magicians are going to dominate politically.

I'm not sure it would be a poorer one, unless the magic and its by-products are only available to the rich and elite.

[Datepalm]

Any sort of magic that makes food production much easier, increases women's economic contribution in primitive societies, and/or decreases the infant mortality rate significantly is going to go a long way towards making women's status better off in your fantasy society. Cultural institutions will still matter, but I believe the economics would eventually reshape the culture

You don't even need magic here, really - fantasy worlds often seem to have very modern demographics (ie low child mortality, low birth rates, old age, etc. coughWOTcough) while keeping a sense of women's 'place' medieval or victorian-medieval literatue, anyway. (WOT actually does better here, but thats another thread.)

[jurble]

Depends what the author wants, marginalization women can occur for a variety of reasons in different societies. In Classical Greek society women had few rights and little involvement in politics. If an author wants a misogynistic society, he can construct it in any manner he chooses (or she, I suppose).

[Spring Bass]

You don't even need magic here, really - fantasy worlds often seem to have very modern demographics (ie low child mortality, low birth rates, old age, etc. coughWOTcough) while keeping a sense of women's 'place' medieval or victorian-medieval literatue, anyway. (WOT actually does better here, but thats another thread.)

There usually seems to be a cultural lag between the change in economics and the change in cultural views. Western societies started going through the Demographic Transition in the late 19th century IIRC (with women's rights also becoming a much more salient political issue), but there was still a lingering cultural view on the role of women that hasn't quite disappeared even today.

Depends what the author wants, marginalization women can occur for a variety of reasons in different societies. In Classical Greek society women had few rights and little involvement in politics. If an author wants a misogynistic society, he can construct it in any manner he chooses (or she, I suppose).

What interests me is when you get variations on the treatment of women within a similar cultural context, which happened in Classical Greece. I pointed out the contrast between Sparta and Athens in my first post in this thread. Both still had the "women are supposed to be wives/mothers" ideal, but Athens was much harsher ("proper" women weren't supposed to be outside their household during the daytime).

[Jon Sprunk]

Min, I agree with the basic thrust of your post, but I'd replace "vast majority" with "small, but sometimes popular minority."

Most writers do know how to research.

[Errant Bard]

It doesn't matter what the world was, the only thing that matters is what people think makes sense within the context. Truth is irrelevant, collective prejudice and acceptance is where it's at.

Most fantasy buyers liked their women subjugated, else Fantasy would not sell as it is.

[MatthewF]

Most fantasy buyers liked their women subjugated, else Fantasy would not sell as it is.

You're confusing correlation with causation; there's absolutely no reason to believe it's a preference among fantasy readers.

The same correlation leads to "most fantasy buyers aren't so offended by the subjugation of women that they're deterred from reading it", which I strongly argue is much, much more likely.

Do you have some kind of evidence that fantasy that doesn't put women in a lesser social class sells poorly? Or really, anything to back up the idea that fantasy readers prefer the subjugation of women?

[Tammy]

So, this is partly a look at women in fantasy. I know it has been beat to death before, especially in the Bakker threads, but i've been doing some reading that warrents a return to this subject. Of course, it can be directly applied to other areas where fantasy authors steal swathes of historical points without perhaps fully understanding the reasons why.

Now, i'm reading a book called: The Civilization of the Middle Ages, by Norman Cantor. Its a remarkable book, if a little dry, dealing with the rise of the Catholic church during the roman empire and beyond. Now, i reached a page that struck me as particularily interesting. In Frankish society, previoius to the year 700, women enjoyed a considerable amount of freedom compared to other nations. These were of course noble women, or freeman, soldiers, and landlords - not serfs. According to the book these women: "were more independant of their fathers and brothers, more capable of making decisions about their lives, and allowed to hold landed property and to play a role in political life than in Roman times." The women of the Merovingian family, the royal Frankish family, were equally capable of violence and scheming as their male couterparts.

This independence faded with the continued growth of the catholic church, which wanted women chaste and virginial and useless. The church also worked to encourage wealthy women, such as the sisters of kings, to start nunnery's with their wealth, thereby increasing the wealth of the church.

So, all of that being said, i return to the topic of women in fantasy. Often we want to see reflections of our world in the books that we read. But how worthy a source is that without the institutions around that helped to shape our world. Without a Catholic church, why could women not have found greater independence sooner? If there is magic, why would technology advance the same way?

I think without a simliar institution as the church in a fantasy world, at least in a fantasy society based upon the western world, chances would be good for strong and independent women that actually make sense within the context of the world and the story.

Thoughts?

I actually really enjoyed his book on the Middle Ages that you're reading. Of course, there are some interpretation errors or biases, but it was a decent read and put some matters together quite succinctly. Just read more than Cantor.

But, as MinDonner said, his Plague book is terrible. Really cringeworthy and laughable. It's seriously a shame that it got published and is out there where people can get their hands on it.

[polishgenius]

Most fantasy buyers liked their women subjugated, else Fantasy would not sell as it is.

That rather assumes that the treatment of women is what most people are thinking of when they buy fantasy.

I also think that the whole idea is based on a false perception of fantasy. I wouldn't say that anything near most fantasy operates on the idea of submissive women, and even the ones where they do, it's usually 'part of the scene' and any female main characters in the story ignore or subvert such assumptions, and that's not even discussing the ever-growing section of non-medieval stuff where the argument isn't as relevant. There's plenty of cases where you might argue that women are under-represented, or badly drawn, or patronisingly portrayed, but there aren't all that many where women are just there to stay out of the way and do what the men tell them.

There's a reason why Bakker and women gets so much attention - it's because he's an unusual case. Although I suspect the perception of the genre as a whole comes, as ever in medieval fantasy, in large part from the fact that the accusation may be thrown at Tolkien as well.

Anyhow, I think that's getting away from the point of the thread, which is that popular perception of the middle ages that feeds from and into fantasy doesn't bear all that much resemblance to the actual middle ages. Things like what Datepalm listed, concerning life expectancy and health and hygene in general. Or what seems to me to be a very modern trend in terms of how information would spread and how well informed the average person would be (though I'm no expert).

[The Marquis de Leech]

in large part from the fact that the accusation may be thrown at Tolkien as well.

People confuse the relatively small number of female characters in Tolkien with him portraying women misogynistically. Tolkien's female characters (Galadriel, Eowyn, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Shelob, Luthien, Nerdanel, Ungoliant, etc) are often quite powerful and enjoy high status.

[Kalbear]

It's a fair cop and has to go with good (or bad) worldbuilding in general. When you introduce something as amazingly powerful as magic can be you can be very superficial with it - basically make it medieval times, but with fireballs. And that's fine, but it's completely lame.

For instance, one of the notions of why women were originally subjugated as they were was because they had less strength than men, and a post-nomadic culture that could afford to defend what it had needed strength. What if magic exists? Does it matter that women can't wield a sword as well as men if they can cast spells?

This isn't just about women of course - it goes for all uses of magic. If you can transmit messages via magic instantly to another person, how does that change warfare? If you can teleport things, how does that change logistics (this was actually used awesomely in Mirror of Her Dreams)?, If you can shoot fireballs, how does that change how an army is organized and how it marches? If you can blow mountains up how does that change mining? Most authors don't think about these sorts of things at all.

[Spring Bass]

This isn't just about women of course - it goes for all uses of magic. If you can transmit messages via magic instantly to another person, how does that change warfare? If you can teleport things, how does that change logistics (this was actually used awesomely in Mirror of Her Dreams)?, If you can shoot fireballs, how does that change how an army is organized and how it marches? If you can blow mountains up how does that change mining? Most authors don't think about these sorts of things at all.

Instant communications would be an immense boon to ancient warfare, although what you could do with your armies would still be limited by logistics and discipline. Espionage would be vastly more developed, though, since you could communicate with spies halfway around the world, and at a variety of different locations. Trade would also receive a huge boost, since your merchants could communicate with agents in different ports about the prices of goods there, and make trading stop decisions accordingly.

Teleportation would be even better, especially if you can do it en masse. You could feed and supply armies and cities from incredibly far away, eliminate almost all the hazards and costs of shipping goods anywhere in the world (effectively giving rise to a world economy much earlier than in real life), power cities and homes from distant central locations, and allow for an insane degree of specialization and economies of scale. In fact, I suspect warfare would be almost unrecognizable in that type of setting, unless you have a way of blocking teleportation to certain areas. What good would fortifications do when you could send troops right into enemy cities, and vice versa?

[Shryke]

It doesn't matter what the world was, the only thing that matters is what people think makes sense within the context. Truth is irrelevant, collective prejudice and acceptance is where it's at.

Most fantasy buyers liked their women subjugated, else Fantasy would not sell as it is.

Bakker threads would seem to indicate otherwise.