That sixteenth century England and a world based on sixteenth century England aren't the same thing, is the main thing thing here, though, and not having women in the same roles-unless you're doing so specifically to say something about those roles-is going to say a lot more then leaving them in the same roles because that's the way things were.
I think just putting well developed female characters in those roles is, all on it's own, doing something with them. It's not necessary that authors write it that way--I like warrior women as well as the next person, and if you want to have a lady viking raider, well. I can see the appeal. However, if you create a world that's obviously modeled on a patriarchal culture, still has most of the trappings of a patriarchal culture, still relies on the tropes associated with a patriarchal culture, but you just made it so women somehow... for no apparent reason, get full participation in a world that still implicitly values "masculinity" over femininity.
If your symbols of power are still physical strength, size, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and all the marks that have long been associated with power in male dominated societies, but women are still smaller, less likely to be physically able to dominate others, and subject to the danger of unplanned parenthood, then an equal society doesn't make sense without a fair amount of explanation and work. A lot of authors don't explain how it works. I want a society that's egalitarian (or matriarchal) to look like a society that's egalitarian. Not like the same old patriarchal narrative with the scripts scrambled (and usually scrambled poorly, so that when the time comes that someone needs to be rescued to drive the plot, it's still a woman).
Without thinking of that, and addressing why women have gotten full inclusion into a world that is implicitly still embracing traditionally western male ideals, it can really read to me like past sexism wasn't hardwired into the system. It goes from being a real systematic, cultural problem, to... oh, well, it's only something that happens when people are mean and don't know better. >(
So by doing it wrong, it's both from a feminist perspective (by my feminist lens--obviously not everyone else's), and from world building perspective (again, for me).
On the other hand, I think I do tend to look at fantasy worlds similar to historical fiction, in that the world/time period being sexist doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem. Yes, the author chose that period, but that doesn't mean there aren't interesting things to do with it, or that those interesting things will ever actually lead to an explicit rejection of the sexist system. I can understand if that pings you, and that's fair. For me, if the women are written as more than just their stereotypical roles, that's a kind of rejection, even if it isn't necessarily spelled out plainly, or a big underlined plot point.
I'm still not sure that I make sense, and I think I've probably spewed out a high enough word count trying to explain it in someone else's journal.
AND--I actually had a rather similar experience in Inuyasha fandom, only the reverse. It was the first fandom I was in, about six or seven years ago now, and when I've talked to people about it now, I hear about how much slash there was in that fandom. And, my god, I barely ever saw it. I think I was reading fic for months before I first stumbled over it. The communities and people I knew were all about the het, and normally in the form of sprawling multiparters. The idea there were so many yaoi PWPs there was totally different from what I'd seen. I'm sure it was true for them, but it still boggles me that I could have missed it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 07:52 am (UTC)That sixteenth century England and a world based on sixteenth century England aren't the same thing, is the main thing thing here, though, and not having women in the same roles-unless you're doing so specifically to say something about those roles-is going to say a lot more then leaving them in the same roles because that's the way things were.
I think just putting well developed female characters in those roles is, all on it's own, doing something with them. It's not necessary that authors write it that way--I like warrior women as well as the next person, and if you want to have a lady viking raider, well. I can see the appeal. However, if you create a world that's obviously modeled on a patriarchal culture, still has most of the trappings of a patriarchal culture, still relies on the tropes associated with a patriarchal culture, but you just made it so women somehow... for no apparent reason, get full participation in a world that still implicitly values "masculinity" over femininity.
If your symbols of power are still physical strength, size, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and all the marks that have long been associated with power in male dominated societies, but women are still smaller, less likely to be physically able to dominate others, and subject to the danger of unplanned parenthood, then an equal society doesn't make sense without a fair amount of explanation and work. A lot of authors don't explain how it works. I want a society that's egalitarian (or matriarchal) to look like a society that's egalitarian. Not like the same old patriarchal narrative with the scripts scrambled (and usually scrambled poorly, so that when the time comes that someone needs to be rescued to drive the plot, it's still a woman).
Without thinking of that, and addressing why women have gotten full inclusion into a world that is implicitly still embracing traditionally western male ideals, it can really read to me like past sexism wasn't hardwired into the system. It goes from being a real systematic, cultural problem, to... oh, well, it's only something that happens when people are mean and don't know better. >(
So by doing it wrong, it's both from a feminist perspective (by my feminist lens--obviously not everyone else's), and from world building perspective (again, for me).
On the other hand, I think I do tend to look at fantasy worlds similar to historical fiction, in that the world/time period being sexist doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem. Yes, the author chose that period, but that doesn't mean there aren't interesting things to do with it, or that those interesting things will ever actually lead to an explicit rejection of the sexist system. I can understand if that pings you, and that's fair. For me, if the women are written as more than just their stereotypical roles, that's a kind of rejection, even if it isn't necessarily spelled out plainly, or a big underlined plot point.
I'm still not sure that I make sense, and I think I've probably spewed out a high enough word count trying to explain it in someone else's journal.
AND--I actually had a rather similar experience in Inuyasha fandom, only the reverse. It was the first fandom I was in, about six or seven years ago now, and when I've talked to people about it now, I hear about how much slash there was in that fandom. And, my god, I barely ever saw it. I think I was reading fic for months before I first stumbled over it. The communities and people I knew were all about the het, and normally in the form of sprawling multiparters. The idea there were so many yaoi PWPs there was totally different from what I'd seen. I'm sure it was true for them, but it still boggles me that I could have missed it.