342 replies to this topic

[Maia]

Didn't want to contribute to the Bakkernalia, but I just have to say that this:

Quote

(I had Marx on the mind back then: The women’s liberation movement, it so happens, also ‘liberated’ tremendous pools of labour for capital to rationalize. Is emancipation even possible in a society designed to systematically exploit its every human resource?

is pure BS. Since when was it necessary to give people rights to exploit them or make them part of the labour force? It sure wasn't necessary with (poor) men.
Also, if Bakker thinks that women only began to enter labour force in numbers after they got the voting rights, he needs to brush up on his European history. This idea is so hopelessly mired in blinkered North American-centric world-view, it is really embarrassing.

[Antonius Pius]

Maia, on 04 May 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

is pure BS. Since when was it necessary to give people rights to exploit them or make them part of the labour force? It sure wasn't necessary with (poor) men.
Also, if Bakker thinks that women only began to enter labour force in numbers after they got the voting rights, he needs to brush up on his European history. This idea is so hopelessly mired in blinkered North American-centric world-view, it is really embarrassing.

In a nutshell, people in the Industrial Revolution were exploited all across the spectrum, and eventually emancipated themselves. Women were drawn up in the workforce to keep production up and to help provide for their families.

Voting rights for women came after, in most cases not before the 20th century.

[kalbear]

Quote

In a nutshell, people in the Industrial Revolution were exploited all across the spectrum, and eventually emancipated themselves. Women were drawn up in the workforce to keep production up and to help provide for their families.

In large chunks this is untrue as well; women were already doing a lot of cottage industry work, particularly in textiles and  agriculture. The industrial revolution originally killed a lot of this. The women were now being forced to get jobs from specific employers in capital instead of working in these smaller industries, so we saw more of it being reported - but the actual amount of work women were doing was not particularly changed. Furthermore, before the Victorian age women (at least in England) had more rights, not fewer; their ability to have property and other rights was impeded by Victorian times.

The whole original argument is a mess that stems from a huge oversimplification of why modern women's rights came about.

[sologdin]

it necessary to give people rights to exploit them or make them part of the labour force

it's a similar argument about how abolitionists could be anti-slavery and yet pro-capitalist.  liberate the laborer and make same responsible for the laborer's own reproduction of its means of production.  rate of exploitation and surplus extraction might be readily increased as needed.

the ending of coverture is like the abolition of slavery--giving someone the right to contract and to hold property makes them full market participants, which allows the prior custodian of the person to abjure the duties of wardship:  "coverture's over, sweety--get a jrrrrrb!"  it encourages "personal responsibility," which means that persons in the same class strata will compete with each other for scarce sources of revenue, thereby regarding each other as enemies, rather than the ruling class.

it's all fairly standard.  the notion that capitalism encourages women's liberation is also fairly standard--it's part of capitalism's progressive tendency.  hard for me to see the objection to RSB's position, except for the final caveat about whether "is emancipation even possible in a society designed to systematically exploit its every human resource," which is a philistine way to conceptualize it.

[Antonius Pius]

Kalbear, on 04 May 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

In large chunks this is untrue as well; women were already doing a lot of cottage industry work, particularly in textiles and  agriculture. The industrial revolution originally killed a lot of this. The women were now being forced to get jobs from specific employers in capital instead of working in these smaller industries, so we saw more of it being reported - but the actual amount of work women were doing was not particularly changed. Furthermore, before the Victorian age women (at least in England) had more rights, not fewer; their ability to have property and other rights was impeded by Victorian times.

True, but that didn't fit into my nutshell

[TerraPrime]

Antonius Pius, on 04 May 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

True, but that didn't fit into my nutshell

You need bigger nuts, then.

[Antonius Pius]

More true than you know...

Edited by Antonius Pius, 04 May 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Galactus]

Kalbear, on 04 May 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

In large chunks this is untrue as well; women were already doing a lot of cottage industry work, particularly in textiles and  agriculture. The industrial revolution originally killed a lot of this. The women were now being forced to get jobs from specific employers in capital instead of working in these smaller industries, so we saw more of it being reported - but the actual amount of work women were doing was not particularly changed. Furthermore, before the Victorian age women (at least in England) had more rights, not fewer; their ability to have property and other rights was impeded by Victorian times.

The whole original argument is a mess that stems from a huge oversimplification of why modern women's rights came about.

Basically, what the industrial revolution did was stratify gender-roles. (at least initially) pre-modern socities were often segregated according to gender in various ways, but it was, in many ways, more "fluid". While women were generally speaking considered less than men, it was generally "less than men of the same class". For instance, we have a bunch of examples of women taking over their husband's jobs. (be it as craftsmen, government officials etc.) in case of sickness/death. (even in some cases, voting rights or representation in the various governing assemblies of the day)

For your regular Joe (who is a farmer, remember this. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE FARMERS OF SOME TYPE OR OTHER. DO NOT FORGET THIS) his wife is likely going to be working inside the home... But then again, so is he. They're both existing in a pre- (or at least only partially) marketized society: They probably have different tasks they do, but they're largely doing them together. (and this is important too, when considering marriage: Husbands and wives aren't just important in what possessions they bring with them but also due to their own personal labor) Men and women are going to be working closely with each other. (both physically and mentally) so eg. the husband is going to be watching the children too, etc.

Now, as the early-modern era starts rolling this changes: The husband is likely to have to leave his own farm at least part of the time and do day-labor somewhere else, and his wife is likely to take up some cottage-industry work at home. As the agriculture starts becoming more efficient though, the husband's work isn't going to be worth very much: He's going to have to take a job at a factory.

And this means that he's out of the house on a (more or less) permanent basis, which means further segregation of work: Because now he *can't* take care of the children. So his wife has to. Which means she's not working and earning money (at least not after a while, at first they probably have to work and bring their children with them) which further strengthens the divide, etc. etc.

[Horus Bergeron]

Marcus Cicero, on 23 April 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I still think the realism argument can be applied. If you're writing about a feudal, pre-industrial society, magic or no magic, it would be kind of a leap to deny rampant sexism and racism. The feudal governments which so many fantasies have in their setting are obviously structured on inequality - the aristocracy owns the land because their blood runs 'pure'. It's a sad fact of human nature that if the society already includes institutional inequality, then women will probably be (unfairly) regarded as inferior. If you're acknowledging that the Duke rules because his family is necessarily surperior to yours, then it's not a stretch to then say that women are inferior. The inequality is already rampant and accepted, so the base sexism that is a part of human nature will go unchecked. But if there's a Democracy built on the ideal that everyone should have equal political weight, then at some point people will realize that the exclusion of women is barbaric. There are probably some examples of feudal societies where women held special or privelged status, but the vast majority had the same sort of ingrained cultural sexism.

When industrialization and democracy ensue, i.e. as rationalism and egalitarianism because more and more prominent as viable ways of thinking, people are more likely to realize that women and other races are not inherently inferior. Sexism will still exist, but I don't think anyone can deny that it's gotten better. At our basest, we're tribal animals, but as our civilization has slowly developed and avanced, our sentience has allowed us to tame our pettier instincts.

Authors like Martin and Abercrombie want to depict something which seems like a real pre-industrial society, but with the fantastical layered on top. They're not interested in reinventing equality's relations to government and economics.

Of course, just because you're depicting a sexist society doesn't mean you can't have women with agency. Powerful women did exist in society's which regarded them as inferior. And some fantasy authors need to think of sources of tension for their female characters other than 'OMG will she get raped?'

Beautifully put.  I don't see how people who advocate the creation of an idealized fantasy based on a feudal society can rationalize that that world will be enlightened in every way but how they choose their leaders.  I'm a black man but I don't see a problem with fiction that portrays characters in perspective to their environment.  A society where travel is fairly limited will be pretty homogenous.  Whereas a future society, take the Matrix for example, will be mixed.  I take more of an issue with shows in futuristic settings that under-represent minorities for that reason.  That's why I can watch mob movies where the worst characters use the N-word freely.  I don't want to be placated or pandered to in that sense.

Edited by Horus Bergeron, 16 January 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[Castel]

Quote

Beautifully put.  I don't see how people who advocate the creation of an idealized fantasy based on a feudal society can rationalize that that world will be enlightened in every way but how they choose their leaders

I think that you can create a fantasy world in which women, especially noblewomen have more rights without removing feudalism. Magic can be a great equaliser. If your world has some sort of magical power that isn't dependent on sex then you already have your basis.

[Into the Fire]

Burn the witch!  Burn the witch!

[TheDanish]

This is why I appreciate fantasy that breaks out of the Western European medieval archetype.  There are so many cultures, societies, civilizations, empires, etc. for writers to draw from, and yet the industry continues to rehash different versions of the same thing.  I'm not saying this wrong, because there has been a lot of really good Europeanized fantasy, but there are so many opportunities to break the mold.

One might look to the pre-Columbian Americas for societies that had not developed ironworking.  Or perhaps Song China for an enormous empire that recruits its statesmen with a (kind-of, sort-of) meritocratic system.  There is speculation (though no hard proof) that very early Japanese culture was matriarchal.

And these examples are all from history.  We're writing fiction and fantasy.  We can do whatever the heck we want!  I understand that GRRM wanted to write ASOIAF the way he did because (and correct me if I'm wrong) he thought the fantasy of his time glossed over how terrible it was to live in medieval Europe.  And that's a valid goal.  But now it seems we may have a different goal - to realize fantasy once more.

[Crazydog7]

While we are on the subject of historical accuracies I want to read a 21^st century post 9/11 fantasy novel where the Islamic stand in that isn’t automatically the bad guys.  Now I am an American descended from Germans, Englishmen and Norwegians so I don’t know why it sticks in my crawl so much but every time it happens as much as I may  or may not like the story the author might as well be screaming “Hey I can be  culturally reinvent too I’m going to call them X but they are really a stand in for the Muslim faith”

But this is interesting too now that I think about it all fantasy that I know of is written from a Eurocentic standpoint.  Does anyone know of fantasy on the Asian or African models?

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Crazydog7, on 21 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

But this is interesting too now that I think about it all fantasy that I know of is written from a Eurocentic standpoint.  Does anyone know of fantasy on the Asian or African models?

Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys is African-focused (it describes all white characters as white, but never describes anyone as black, since being black is the default). Zelazny's Lord of Light is Hinduism vs Buddhism in a sci-fi context.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

TheDanish, on 17 January 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

And these examples are all from history.  We're writing fiction and fantasy.  We can do whatever the heck we want!

If you stop and think about it, it is incredibly weird that fantasy, a genre where the rules of the world can be played with as much as the author wants, has developed such 'standard' conventions. Standard fantasy should be an oxymoron.

[Antonius Pius]

Crazydog7, on 21 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

While we are on the subject of historical accuracies I want to read a 21^st century post 9/11 fantasy novel where the Islamic stand in that isn’t automatically the bad guys.

This happened in the scholarly field too. Suddenly the Crusades were relevant again, but now the historical Muslims were conflated with Al-Qaeda, and the Crusades themselves reinterpreted as a forward defense against Muslim threats (also bringing in the 15th century Siege of Vienna to prove an 11th century point).

[red snow]

Crazydog7, on 21 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

While we are on the subject of historical accuracies I want to read a 21^st century post 9/11 fantasy novel where the Islamic stand in that isn’t automatically the bad guys.  Now I am an American descended from Germans, Englishmen and Norwegians so I don’t know why it sticks in my crawl so much but every time it happens as much as I may  or may not like the story the author might as well be screaming “Hey I can be  culturally reinvent too I’m going to call them X but they are really a stand in for the Muslim faith”

But this is interesting too now that I think about it all fantasy that I know of is written from a Eurocentic standpoint.  Does anyone know of fantasy on the Asian or African models?

The eurocentric standpoint is probably because a lot of fantasy authors come from Europ or North America/Australia where they all study european history. It doesn't really excuse why the focus is on medieval times and not the ancient greeks or Romans though.

I felt like Bakker's Muslim analogues weren't any worse than the "good guys" in "the darkness that comes before". There's even an argument that they are the victims. Then again the whole trilogy is loosely inspired by the crusades but in an unbiased way.

Another reason why I think authors choose a "standard" model is because that's what readers expect, They are so used to the Medieval setting and the stereotypes that come with it that it allows them to skim over on the world building. To make an original setting you need to explain a lot more and you always run the risk of being accused it's "unrealistic". Basing it on a culture that existed at least means you know it works for a short while.

I do think there are books that aren't inspired by medieval europe but the problem is they don't seem to sell very well. Daniel's own "the long price" tries its own thing and while well-receieved wasn't a massive hit. I'm sure that's part of the reason why his new series is much more eurocentric. Fortunately it's damn good as well.

[polishgenius]

Crazydog7, on 21 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

While we are on the subject of historical accuracies I want to read a 21^st century post 9/11 fantasy novel where the Islamic stand in that isn’t automatically the bad guys.

I'm curious as to which ones they are... In Abercrombie and Bakker, as mentioned, everyone's a bastard and there's a distinct impression that in both cases the 'Islamic' side is actually the victim overall. And I can't think of any other major modern fantasies where there's a significant Islamic stand-in culture at all.

Quote

But this is interesting too now that I think about it all fantasy that I know of is written from a Eurocentic standpoint.  Does anyone know of fantasy on the Asian or African models?

There's a few. Guy Gavriel Kay's Under Heaven is based (very heavily) on Tang China (and there's a sequel set some centuries later). The Long Price Quartet was mentioned, that's Asian-inspired, most closely probably also by China. A bit further back, Feist and Wurt's Empire trilogy is based in the Japanese-based area of Midkemia.

Lauren Beukes' Zoo City is an urban fantasy set in South Africa. I haven't read it yet, but Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death is an Africa-set fantasy that got excellent reviews.

Roose Bolton, on 21 January 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

If you stop and think about it, it is incredibly weird that fantasy, a genre where the rules of the world can be played with as much as the author wants, has developed such 'standard' conventions. Standard fantasy should be an oxymoron.

Totally agree. I've always found it rather strange that you're far more likely to find something mind-bending and out there if you grab an SF book than a fantasy.
It's changing though, in fairness. The influence of the 'New Weird' and suchlike and Brandon Sanderson's more outlandish concepts is bringing a welcome strangeness into more mainstream fantasy I think.

[SkynJay]

Crazydog7, on 21 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

But this is interesting too now that I think about it all fantasy that I know of is written from a Eurocentic standpoint.  Does anyone know of fantasy on the Asian or African models?

One on my to read list is NK Jemison, who set one of her series in an Egyptian flavored fantasy.  And its not Asian or African, but for a non-eurocentric fantasy you could try 'Obsidian and Blood' by Aliette de Bodard.

[The WaterDancer Knight]

Antonius Pius, on 21 January 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

This happened in the scholarly field too. Suddenly the Crusades were relevant again, but now the historical Muslims were conflated with Al-Qaeda, and the Crusades themselves reinterpreted as a forward defense against Muslim threats (also bringing in the 15th century Siege of Vienna to prove an 11th century point).

Actually it was a muslim threat that provoked the 1st crusade. Remember the Turks, who where muslims and quite fanatical about their faith, had just conquered the (big) city of Antioch, most of Asia Minor and were besieging Nicea. From a christian point of view, it was the mulslims that were the agressors of christian's lands not the opposite.

The 1st siege of Vienna was in 16th century. In 15th century that was the Fall of Constantinople. But I fail to understand how those events can prove anything about anything that happened during the 11 century.

Edited by The WaterDancer Knight, 21 January 2013 - 10:29 AM.