342 replies to this topic

[Marcus Cicero]

Maia, on 25 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

You are aware that throughout human history and until very recently, women had it much worse in the democracies/meritocracies, yes? For the simple reason that in a feudal/monarchic state, if they were incredibly lucky and capable, they could attain a position of power due to accident of birth and/or because somebody in power noticed them (first as a lover, yes), started to trust them and gave them an opportunity? And that powerful men without sons have often been motivated to ensure that their daughters could inherit their wealth and power.  

Whereas until the 20-ieth century in democrcies/meritocracies, women were denied even this crack  to put their foot through the door. They were just summarily excluded from even attempting to compete. Ever.

And as Lummel has already mentioned, industrialization actually initially lead to worse conditions for women, rather than better ones.

Marcus Cicero, on 25 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yeah, the process is slow and there will be steps backwards. But the seeds are planted. Nowhere did I say that industrialization will immediately have the effects I outlined.

[Mr. E]

sciborg2, on 25 April 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

You can't really respect an opinion then say it's an "excuse to bellyache". Why don't the arguments have validity, because your Dad would like the books? That's not really an argument, it's an anecdote.

All literary criticism is bellyaching by that line of reasoning.

Well, to be fair, most literary criticism is bellyaching

Edited by Mr. E, 25 April 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Mr. E]

sciborg2, on 25 April 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

All literary criticism is bellyaching by that line of reasoning.

DP, sorry.

Edited by Mr. E, 25 April 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Sci-2]

Mr. E, on 25 April 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Well, to be fair, most literary criticism is bellyaching

Heh, fair enough but I'll go back to something Solodgin once said (I'm paraphrasing):

If we're not critiquing/interrogating works from one perspective or another, then all discussion is nothing more - directly or indirectly - than a form of marketing.

[JEORDHl]

Ok, I just retread my previous post and man was that a load of bad writing. I hate myself now. Damn this thread, damn my job, my iPad,  just damn it all.

Fuck!

Hahaha...

[kalbear]

Some other examples -

In greek/ Rome times homosexual sex was often happening with the losers after the battle was done. In Rome they'd take children for cata mite lovers sometimes. By comparison, the islamic armies of the crusades were under strict orders not to rape with the penalty of death. And as noted Mongols would happily rape and pillage, but only after a resisting city fell: one that surrendered was guaranteed safety.

It's really not that hard to figure these things out. In particular for the dothraki it would make a bit of sense that they were less prone to rape simply because their livelihood was built around tribute from other nations. In any case, it's less a historical fact that war rape always occurred and more of something that did occur some times.

Or justify it. Say all women who bear a dothraki child become dothraki, as do their kids. Talk about how the dothraki aren't genetically one group of people and how they have a ton of diversity. And you complain because this required work? That's what being a good writer is.

Put it another way - not including the rape at all would have been less work, no?

[JEORDHl]

Kalbear, on 25 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

It's really not that hard to figure these things out. In particular for the dothraki it would make a bit of sense that they were less prone to rape simply because their livelihood was built around tribute from other nations. In any case, it's less a historical fact that war rape always occurred and more of something that did occur some times.

Right. And then other side of that-- tribute to a group similar to the Dothraki is more like a protection racket. Reputation is key... but, blah. I'm too groggy from catching up an all-nighter a few nights ago and really, it's not even worth arguing.  

Kalbear, on 25 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Put it another way - not including the rape at all would have been less work, no?

True. And not including it wouldn't have necessarily diminished anything.

It's weird though, you know? I wrote a short that was workshopped a few years ago, and one of the more biting parts of a few critiques [there were 8 of us] from the other writers, one even being that of our guest host, were that I'd implied a rape rather than depicting the scene, like I'd lost the conviction of the telling and the integrity of the story as a whole by that singular omission. I was a little taken aback, honestly. The titular female [main] character in question was marginally 14, and the story was drafted around a couple conjoined 'tragic hero' arcs that complimented each other in offset [the other, being, her father, whom she'd deliberately brought into the conflict by endangering herself] Yet I just couldn't, wouldn't, write that particular scene outright, even though I'd decided her strength would best be shown as weakness in her internalizing of it and making no mention of the price she paid to bring relief to the siege.

Using your reasoning, could I have revealed her innate character in a different manner, at that penultimate point of the narrative-- success, defeat, and sacrifice? Only in her death, I think, but I felt that would have been a cop out to what I was going for. Made her heroics less, mmn, sacred or something. Going on is harder.

Now of course, I wonder. Head scratcher. Lots to think about.

Edited by JEORDHl, 25 April 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[kalbear]

Another slight interesting point is that the dothraki were modeled after the Mongol empire and the native American tribes - neither of whom did much in the way of war raping.

But the stereotype of both is that they did.

[Grack21]

You know, for once I'd like to see a thread on this board that doesn't turn into an argument about rape.

[sologdin]

what about all of the dothraki falsely accused of rape, huh?  huh?

[JEORDHl]

Sure. There's got to be Dothraki that just don't do it... but they turn the eye, you know? Got to suck having integrity and still being complicit.

[wolverine]

Shryke, on 25 April 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

The whole "women are totally equal just because" thing is, imo, just as lazy. (like in a world where the fantastic elements give no obvious reason why gender equality should exist) Although I wouldn't say it's always lazy. It's situational.

I didn't see this until page 5 and it was exactly what I was thinking.

Another thing a few people touched on is authors can choose what they depict as societal norms in fantasy writing, but that doesn't mean they can't show sexist societies.  It seems like some people early in the argument here believe authors are responsible to write without any sexism/racism in fantasy.


There has been a little discussion about how universal sexism is in pre-industrial society and I don't really know how universal it is or to what degree, but I know I have assumptions, at least about medieval Europe anyway.  Other readers will come into writers stories with their assumptions also and whether or not they are accurate they still exist. For example, for me (and maybe I am a sexist pig), it was a little jarring to read about Erikson's heavy infrantryWOmen without any explanation of why there would be heavy infantrywomen.

In general men are bigger and stronger than women.  In a society where in many situations might is right the bigger and stronger sex would seem to have power over the less physically strong sex. It seems that even if there is only a perception of this power it would infiltrate more of society so that even men who are not physically larger/stronger would still often hold more power than women.  Thus, it makes sense to me that societies based on a very physical sort of conflict resolution could possibly be sexist without some other influence that would make them not be sexist.

Obviously stuff like magic can level the playing field, but as others have said that would depend totally on the nature of the magic.

[Errant Bard]

wolverine, on 26 April 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

that doesn't mean they can't show sexist societies.  It seems like some people early in the argument here believe authors are responsible to write without any sexism/racism in fantasy.

Nobody said that. Daniel Abraham even said he chose to include it in his works, if I recall.

The discussion isn't about what the authors can put in their novels, they can put whatever they want, it's about what reason they can invoke for writing specific details, and how "it was like that" is a not a good reason (whereas "I was concentrating on other stuff so I just copy-pasted that", "I wanted to show how it sucked" (typical Bakker argument, you'll note), "I wanted to subvert/toy with genre staples" (DA asserts it's GRRM's intention, in his article) or "I just wanted a misogynistic society because it's the natural order of thing" (as seen in this thread) are all valid reasons. Some more telling than others about the personality of the author)


But this being said, I think a whole lot of you are ready to defend the Paladin of Shadows series, now.

Edited by Errant Bard, 26 April 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[Sci-2]

Quote

In general men are bigger and stronger than women. In a society where in many situations might is right the bigger and stronger sex would seem to have power over the less physically strong sex. It seems that even if there is only a perception of this power it would infiltrate more of society so that even men who are not physically larger/stronger would still often hold more power than women. Thus, it makes sense to me that societies based on a very physical sort of conflict resolution could possibly be sexist without some other influence that would make them not be sexist.

If strength rules many if not most male SFF fans, I suspect, would be whores and slaves.

[wolverine]

Errant Bard, on 26 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Nobody said that. Daniel Abraham even said he chose to include it in his works, if I recall.

The discussion isn't about what the authors can put in their novels, they can put whatever they want, it's about what reason they can invoke for writing specific details, and how "it was like that" is a not a good reason (whereas "I was concentrating on other stuff so I just copy-pasted that", "I wanted to show how it sucked" (typical Bakker argument, you'll note), "I wanted to subvert/toy with genre staples" (DA asserts it's GRRM's intention, in his article) or "I just wanted a misogynistic society because it's the natural order of thing" (as seen in this thread) are all valid reasons. Some more telling than others about the personality of the author)

Daniel Abraham did say that.  Early on in the thread it seemed some were implying that authors had a responsibility to get rid of sexism in fantasy or that sexism had no place in fantasy.  Maybe it was unintentional and maybe I was wrongly reading into arguments, but that is the impression I got.

[wolverine]

sciborg2, on 26 April 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

If strength rules many if not most male SFF fans, I suspect, would be whores and slaves.

I don't know if you posted this just to make a joke but this was in my original post that you quoted:

It seems that even if there is only a perception of this power (men over women) it would infiltrate more of society so that even men who are not physically larger/stronger would still often hold more power than women.

[Shryke]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 25 April 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I don't think we disagree.  I think that's why this discussion exists.  My point (perhaps inexpertly expressed) is rather that institutionalized sexism is not, in and of itself, a necessary element of "authentic" world building (no matter when or where that world is set).

If by "authentic" you mean "conforming to the public's general idea* of what the period the work is obviously based on was like" then I'd say it very can be. Obviously depending on the setting. But the past was pretty fucking sexist, all things told and if that's what your setting is based on, that's what you'd expect.

Now you don't have to present an "authentic" (and consistent) world, but that's very much a goal of many authors and very much a desire of many readers.


*One can easily point out the public's general ideas about history are pretty poor overall here of course. Though I would say in this specific aspect they aren't 100% wrong.

Quote

I think it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact necessary to ask ourselves your last question, which to me can be restated as "what does the pervasiveness of institutional sexism in fictionally created worlds tell us about our own culture." I think that's one of the beauties of speculative fiction at its best - commentary on our world through the creation of another (whether the author intends it or not). Maybe we're talking past each other?

I think it tells us about how we view the past. Because that's the purpose of the depiction in the first place.

Edited by Shryke, 26 April 2012 - 01:24 AM.

[Galactus]

Kalbear, on 25 April 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Another slight interesting point is that the dothraki were modeled after the Mongol empire and the native American tribes - neither of whom did much in the way of war raping.

But the stereotype of both is that they did.

That's... dubious.

You have to remember, in the context of war most rape *wasn't* the kind of systemic mass-rape we saw in ex. Yugoslavia (that's a modern phenomenon) rather it was either done in the context of a sack or in the context of small scale raiding/foraging. (or in the case of approporiate societies, slave-raiding)

In the case of the mongols (and possible some native american societies?) the reputation for rape might also have to do witn the bride-price institution (and the associaed custom of "stealing" a wife if you couldn't afford one)

[Galactus]

Errant Bard, on 25 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Genghis Khan's forces, when a city surrendered.

sologdin, on 25 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

The most disciplined forces before the modern era were often paid in the form of being allowed to freely loot and rape the enemy

sure, and the red army engaged in systematic war crimes at the end of world war two, perhaps on orders.  i get it.

but it's not very difficult to write a fiction wherein the army is professional, paid wages rather than via looting, and that soldiers are tried & executed for war crimes, which, although codified recently, have an ancient linneage--a point, i note, to be completely irrelevant to whether they are ancient in the fictional setting.  seriously, how hard is it to have law of warfare in a fictional setting?

Because a law of warfare requires the legal institutions thereof. Systems of handling it, conventions, etc. That means all sides must be capable of enforcing them, which means they have to have a certain level of cohesion/hierarchy.

IE: They need to be modern states, or at least easily controllable ones (like city-states) it kind of would require Martin to scrap the entire "Horde" angle.

[Peadar]

Kalbear, on 25 April 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Another slight interesting point is that the dothraki were modeled after the Mongol empire and the native American tribes - neither of whom did much in the way of war raping.

But the stereotype of both is that they did.

According to this recent book, some Indian tribes at least, engaged in huge amounts of "war rape".