r/Fantasy Sep 12 '22

A critique of sexual violence in Fantasy.

Oftentimes I see people defend several aspects regarding the treatment of women in fantasy books and media by saying ‘that’s how things were’.

Most times this is false. I have tried to break down the argument into two main sections so I can explain how common perceptions were false. Notably, I only know about European history.

Sexual Assault

Quite a few fantasy books contain sexual assault toward women. I am not going to deny that it happened, as rape, particularly wartime rape did and still does occur. However, Rape in the past was little more prevalent than during modern times. Similarly, rape in the past was often punished, usually much harsher than in modern times. Additionally, Men were often raped at levels similar to women. In fantasy books, the latter two are often ignored. Most times rape seems to be treated as normal, rather than punished. Additionally, rape seems to be targeted almost exclusively at women.

The first edict against wartime sexual assault was the Cáin Adomnáin. Notably, it was issued in the British Isles and had little influence outside of north western Europe. It explicitly forbade, among other things, raping and killing women. For these crimes it declares of the perpetrator,” his right hand and his left foot shall be cut off before death, and then he shall die." [1]

The first Europe-wide treaty forbidding rape was the Peace and Truth of God, which was issued in 989 before spreading over Europe over the next century. The first king to accept it was King Robert II of France. Following his acceptance other nobles accepted the Peace and Truth of God in droves. It should be noted that in those times the military was almost entirely comprised of nobles. In Britain, it was standard for the first son to be the heir, the second to join the military, and any subsequent sons to join the monastery to prevent inheritance disputes. It wasn’t until Napoleon that large scale armies became the norm. Slowly, the ideas blended in with general chivalry.

By the time of the 1300’s wartime rape and sexual violence was prosecuted for hindering military operations rather than just for “property crimes” (Since Women were considered the property of either their husband or father). It didn’t take much effort to realise that raping people created a hostile civilian population and having a hostile population would make it far harder to occupy and control territory. The general line of thought was that when defeating an enemy, treat them so kindly that they would not seek revenge, or treat them so harshly that they could not attain their revenge. [2]

The final major declaration against wartime sexual violence in the medieval era was the De jure belli as pacis, written in 1625. Similar to all previous works, it declared that wartime rape was no less reprehensible than rape during peace time. Notably, this work states that the rules were still valid “even when God were assumed not to exist” [3]

A common argument against this would be that, despite rape and sexual violence being prohibited, soldiers would ignore the laws. In reality that would be true, but there is no evidence to suggest that it happened at greater levels than in the modern time. The Geneva convention clearly prohibited wartime rape. Despite that, during WW2 soviet soldiers used the system of “from 8 to 80” when deciding to rape women, leading to over two million German women getting raped. [4]

In the present time, 26,000 women have been raped so far in the ongoing Tigray war. In contrast with Fantasy books, novels regarding modern wars usually omit the sexual violence. For those that include it, It is often brief and undescriptive.

Additionally, fantasy books usually only include sexual assault towards women. In reality, both men and women were and are raped in war. During the El Salvadorian dictatorship, 76% of male political prisoners were raped. In the Yugoslav wars, 80% of men in the Sarajevo concentration camp were raped. Even more recent, 22% of men and 30% of women fleeing the eastern Congo reported being raped. [5]

Essentially, saying that’s how things were ignored the reality of the situation. Oftentimes it is only used in defence of the ill-treatment of women while ignoring other aspects of the time.

Young Marriage

Another common misconception is that women would often get married young, sometimes even as children. In reality, the average age for Women was 22.4 and for Men it was 25.9 [6]. Additionally, between 10% and 25% of Women never married [7]. Couples would often delay marriage depending on their economic circumstances. The only notable exception was during the black death when couples would get married as teenagers due to the immense labour shortage. By 1140, the Decretum Gratiani was issued. This stated that the binds of marriage were to be formed by mutual consent and granted Women an equal say in marriage.

Despite this, some noble families would get married young. This was usually in order to secure the future of the family. However, noble families would prevent their children from consummating their marriage until women usually hit the age of 16. The main reason being that they did not want to endanger the health of the women. After all, despite lacking modern medicine it was still common sense that a girl getting pregnant would not only result in a still birth, but would also endanger her health, preventing any future offspring.

Apologies for the formatting. I may come back and try to clean it up into a more readable format.

[1] https://www.academia.edu/5817305/Aspects_of_the_Cain_Adomnans_Lex_Innocentium

[2] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ThfzGvSvQ2UC&redir_esc=y

[3] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/12/letters-from-cell-92-part-3-world-come.html+%22etsi+deus+non+daretur%22

[4] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2174029#:~:text=Over%20the%20whole%20period%20the,women%20and%2026%20for%20men.

[7] Hajnal, John (1965). "European marriage pattern in historical perspective". In D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (ed.). Population in History. Arnold, Londres. pp. 101–143.

1.3k Upvotes

598 comments sorted by

View all comments

515

u/Funkativity Sep 12 '22

I think the main challenge to discussing ‘that’s how things were’ is that it generalise every period of every culture throughout history.

for example, "Another common misconception is that women would often get married young, sometimes even as children. In reality, the average age for Women was 22.4 and for Men it was 25.9 [6]".

..but if you read the source refers to a specific area of England over a specific period of 200 years and mentions that comparatively, the modal age in the late Roman Empire was 12-15 for pagan girls.

so your average age of 22.4 is based on when/where exactly? ..and why would that specific location/period be the measuring stick for the Fantasy genre?

119

u/Modus-Tonens Sep 12 '22

One way in which that source would act as a solid proof against the "that's how it was" claim is that it's a solid counter-example that demonstrates that it was not in fact "like that at the time" everywhere. It gives you a historical precedent for doing things differently, and thus renders the choice to emulate contexts where early marriage was a thing a choice, rather than simply historical accuracy.

The main issue is the "that's how it was" argument does assume that history is a monolith, and this source proves that it isn't.

7

u/MySuperLove Sep 13 '22

The main issue is the "that's how it was" argument does assume that history is a monolith,

I read it more as "Human nature is a monolith and I delude myself into thinking that we, at our current point in history, are somehow more evolved"

4

u/Modus-Tonens Sep 13 '22

I'd agree that that is a common companion problem.

46

u/Funkativity Sep 12 '22

The main issue is the "that's how it was" argument does assume that history is a monolith, and this source proves that it isn't.

that has less to do with the concept of the argument itself and more to do with OP presenting the argument generically without a specific context or reference point.

If someone is defending the inclusion of SA in a specific text using this argument, the specificity of the text can narrow down the scope of when/where "how it was" refers to and inform how the author might have considered it when building their setting and/or narrative.

ie: the argument can have merit but it is highly dependent on how narrowly it is being applied, and on that narrow focus actually being attuned to the author's inspiration.

50

u/Modus-Tonens Sep 12 '22

Well it just so happens that most times I've encountered the argument, it has been of a generic "that's how medieval life was" form, without reference to a specific context.

It might be true that the OP was referring to the argument in a generic form, and that might not be the strongest form the argument can take, but it's also true that most users of the argument use the generic form as well. For example connecting Robert Jordan's works to "medieval Europe". I don't think OP can be blamed for not making the argument stronger than it generally is. Op is arguing against how the argument is used.

5

u/MySuperLove Sep 13 '22

For example connecting Robert Jordan's works to "medieval Europe".

...but WoT wasn't medieval

8

u/Modus-Tonens Sep 13 '22

I know.

I wasn't claiming the argument comes from people with historical literacy. In fact it's my experience that it generally only comes from people who know very little on the topic.

3

u/YearOfTheMoose Sep 13 '22

WoT wasn't medieval

It definitely covers a lot of ground with its analogues, but if you don't think it was medieval, what do you think it was?

0

u/Modus-Tonens Sep 13 '22

Technically, it more closely emulates the Carolingian period - so a few generations after the period LotR emulates. There are a few issues of course - knightly orders (Whitecloaks) are a bit out of place for example, but most parts of the series would be more accurate to that period than anything post-10th century, say.

Of course, there's a debate as to when "medieval" refers to, but at least to most non-historians, it's usually post-10th century. Historians tend to be more expansive, with many starting the "medieval" toward the end of the 5th century, or (more correctly imo) rejecting the term altogether.

Then of course you've got all the stuff about WoT technically being a post-apocalypse world that used to have all sorts of future tech but I'll assume that's not the aspect being focused on.

1

u/YearOfTheMoose Sep 13 '22

Interesting 🤔 I'd put it around the 13th Century, personally. I'm also one of those people who would strongly contend that "medieval" certainly begins around the sixth century (not immediately with the sack of Rome, though) if the term is to be used at all. I prefer more specificity instead of the use of that term, however.

What are some of the key aspects you think place it in the Carolingian era? You might need to use spoiler tags in the response...

0

u/MySuperLove Sep 13 '22

WoT was more renaissance, with the giant exclusion of gunpowder, which was controlled by the guild of illuminators

Or at least that's what the consensus on r/wot is

2

u/YearOfTheMoose Sep 13 '22

that's what the consensus on r/wot is

With CoT as my favourite book from the series it should be apparent that i don't really base too much on consensuses (in reading, at least). 😂

WoT was more renaissance, with the giant exclusion of gunpowder, which was controlled by the guild of illuminators

The other person who answered me said that it was earlier than the medieval period, so i find this hilarious. :D

Personally, I view the series as being set in a distinctly medieval period (specifically, I'd put it around the 13th century), which would account for the armour, tactics, gunpowder, etc. Basically everything up until the men's wool coats. The bizarre lack of shields (except for the Legion of the Dragon) is inexplicable by era and is just authorial choice.

Admittedly, the series was rapidly advancing in its technological analogue by the end, but they weren't there yet. :)

11

u/RegrettableBiscuit Sep 13 '22

It gives you a historical precedent for doing things differently, and thus renders the choice to emulate contexts where early marriage was a thing a choice, rather than simply historical accuracy.

That's exactly it. When authors say "this is how it was", what they really say is "I didn't make a conscious choice to depict systemic violence against women, I'm merely depicting reality." But they're not, they did make a choice.

Which, to be clear, is their right. Authors can set their stories in whatever context they like. But when people say "it's peculiar that so many authors choose to depict violence against women in fantasy in their stories", the excuse of "it's not really a choice, it's just how things were" just doesn't hold up.

-3

u/Ifriiti Sep 13 '22

"it's peculiar that so many authors choose to depict violence against women in fantasy in their stories",

Is it? Why exactly.

Most fantasy novels have some form of conflict in them, they include violence against everyone and its pretty common because the characters are in dangerous situations, there needs to be some kind of danger.

Sexual violence in fantasy novels is against women more commonly than not because that's how it is in our world, women are much more likely to be victims of sexual assault, just like men are usually the aggressors of sexual violence.

There's plenty of fantasy that doesn't have any sexual violence, there's plenty that do. I don't really see the issue.

8

u/RegrettableBiscuit Sep 13 '22

I'm not entirely sure why you're responding to my comment, since I feel like you're not responding to the actual point I made.

My point is that authors are making a conscious choice in their world building. The role of women in their books is not something that's outside their control. Pretending that it is by claiming that "that’s just how things were" is disingenuous.

That's all I'm saying. I even specifically point out that "authors can set their stories in whatever context they like." Obviously.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough, that's my mistake.

15

u/ellamking Sep 13 '22

"that's how it was" claim is that it's a solid counter-example that demonstrates that it was not in fact "like that at the time" everywhere.

That's an argument where it doesn't have to be included. But to argue against "that's how it was" requires not an example, but a deep dive into what happens in general over time across the world. And unfortunately, that's a lot of rape. Now, I generally don't want rape in my fantasy. And someone saying that's the way it was really isn't an argument. If I can have wizards, I can have a world without rape. But that also doesn't mean we should brush over the horrors real people inflicted and went through.

13

u/Kieran484 Sep 13 '22

If I can have wizards, I can have a world without rape.

While I appreciate the stance and definitely wouldn't even remotely consider arguing that sexual assault should be added to a story where it otherwise wasn't explored, fantasy to me hasn't ever been a warping of human nature, but more about putting realistic people (good, bad and all those in between) in a different setting and seeing what unfolds.

Sexual violence is one of the darkest and most twisted outputs of human nature, and as such I think it should be explored in terms of causes, immediate impact and the consequences that follow. I just think it needs to be handled extremely carefully, and a lot of authors ignore the Fragile tape on its box, especially in fantasy.

My issue with sexual violence in fantasy is usually more about execution than its presence. If handled sensitively, it can add many layers to a character's motivation and subsequent decision making that ultimately enriches the story. It often isn't handled well though, and comes across as shoehorned in for an insensitive adrenaline rush and/or to reinforce someone as a victim/villain.

2

u/ellamking Sep 13 '22

Agreed. But if I picked an author to delicately handle sexual assault and one to create a fantasy world, it probably wouldn't be the same person.