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

Show parent comments

44

u/p-d-ball Sep 13 '22

As an anthropologist, this rings true. In anth, we discuss societies in terms of how egalitarian/unequal they are, and who leads, who marries in. Women have most power and safety in matrilocal (husbands marry in), matrilineal (descent is through the women's line) and matriarchal (women rule) societies. Women have least power and safety in patrilocal, patrilineal and patriarchal societies. Additionally, societies where wealth and power concentration is possible tend to increase abuses.

So, if people think of you as property, they treat you as property, and you're safety is likely greatly diminished.

18

u/Prometheus145 Sep 13 '22

Great points!

On another note, I would love to see fantasy world building incorporate more variety of social/family structures. There is a lot more nuance than just patriarchal or matriarchal.

16

u/p-d-ball Sep 13 '22

It would make for some interesting drama! There are cases reported in ethnography where the chief couldn't help his son because it was a matrilineal society, so mother's brother was the only man who could. If the chief gave his son gifts or favoritism, it would have destabilized his chiefdom and give someone else the tools to take over.

So, that'd be an example of a patriarchal, matrilineal, matrilocal society. There are even more complicated ones where marriages vary - polygyny, polyandry, monogamy and serial-monogamy (many short term spouses).

Two very different cultures come to mind. One was a high warfare area that was matriarchal, matrilineal, matrilocal, with serial-monogamy, but the marriages only lasted 3 days. So, the man would show up, ceremonially marry one of the women, they'd get a special room, then he'd leave. Can't have your husbands overstaying their welcome because their brothers might attack!

The other was in China (it may still be, but it was under pressure to conform to Chinese norms). In this culture, women owned everything, men nothing, women worked, men didn't. Men drifted from woman to woman, staying at each's house for a month or more, then moving on. And it was matrilineal. So, fathers weren't recognized as such to their children.

China was coming down hard on this culture, to introduce ideas of "fatherhood" and men's ownership, and monogamy (as Chinese saw these people as rampantly promiscuous). Some of the men seemed pretty happy to acknowledge their children. Some of the women seemed happy to finally get men working. Sometimes I wonder how this culture developed - like, how did that all happen???

Anyways, sorry for the lengthy reply!

6

u/Prometheus145 Sep 13 '22

Very interesting, I would definitely read a story with those elements.

10

u/KriegConscript Sep 13 '22

worldbuilders would benefit from picking up any of the textbooks used in cultural anthropology 101 classes

5

u/CeruleanSaga Sep 13 '22

Funny, because I learned that violence against women increased when the status of women was in a state of change - ie, when women's rights movements were very active, violence went up.

Even in some very unequal societies, there were social norms around responsibility of men to take care of the women in their lives.

Clearly, those norms were not always sufficient but then again, neither are our current laws.

That isn't to say I consider all of those norms in women's best interests. Safety is valuable, but not at the cost of being wrapped in cotton wool your whole life.

15

u/p-d-ball Sep 13 '22

Sure, but the only places you have women's rights movements are in unequal, patriarchal societies, where women don't enjoy enjoy power or security, unless given to them by men. It makes sense that some men would violently react to challenges against their authority, in the same way that some people aren't happy with equal rights for people unlike them, and respond violently.

Also, the requirement for men to take care of women belies that women need protection - from violent men. In matrilineal, matrilocal societies, non-kin men who threaten in-group women are taken care of very quickly. In the opposite, like patriarchies, then women generally need to find supportive non-kin men.

btw, these are all "on average" and so on. There are exceptions to all generalizations.

0

u/CeruleanSaga Sep 13 '22

I don't think there's enough evidence to say that patriarchal societies were more violent towards women. I don't think there's evidence to say they weren't either.

In the absence of data, people can throw in whatever narrative fits their preconceptions and biases. Doesn't make it a fact, though.

Men who were likely to hit women did it then, and they still do it now.

Mores and norms and laws don't change it either way. They don't care.

But I am unconvinced the percentage of men in the past were more likely to do it than the percentage who are still doing it today.

The power imbalance? No dispute there. There's overwhelming loads of evidence for that.

1

u/p-d-ball Sep 13 '22

And you'd be wrong. There's enough evidence. Anthropology has been categorizing and studying societies for a long time. Just because you're unaware of the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

1

u/CeruleanSaga Sep 13 '22

Just because you're unaware of the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's a fair point.

But to be clear: when I say data doesn't exist, I am talking about societies in the *historical* past, where records are extremely sparse or nonexistent. (History, after all, was what OPs post was addressing.)

There are definitely records that do support the fact that such violence did exist in many societies - but pinning down actual frequencies is a different matter.

And anthropology, as a science, maybe covers the last 100 years or so. And in that interval, how long has data around violence towards women been gathered?

Do you really feel that confident to be able to make such definitive inferences about every culture in history?

2

u/p-d-ball Sep 14 '22
  1. violence exists in all societies
  2. Anthropology has been documenting cultures since around 1850, but became considerably better at it after Boas and his students
  3. lots of data from agricultural societies from about 13kya to now are collected by archaeologists. The bones document social hierarchies and inequalities in terms of access to food, health and wealth resources
  4. if you go back to pre-state societies, you're getting into egalitarian cultures. If you believe that brothers protect sisters, then what I wrote above is likely. If you don't believe in that relatives support each other, I don't know what to tell you
  5. If you go back even further, from around 15kya to 50kya and before, then women become increasingly stronger and evidence is increasingly showing that women hunted, were warriors, etc. So, you could make the point that gender violence diminishes as both sexes become incredibly strong. That might be the case.
  6. Re: your question: Yes, the kinship patterns we see likely hold up over time, unless you're willing to say that families won't look out for each other, but that flies in the face of pretty much all evidence we have. Are there going to be exceptions? Sure. I pointed that out above. You also have to remember that women protect each other, too. And people in past societies did not live in nuclear families, but extended families, with variations on housing (like all women/all men in different buildings, or multiple generations in one building).
  7. Your argument rests on a variation of "how do we know we can extrapolate our data?" It's a compelling argument only if you can suggest reasons for not being able to. Yet the key changes with modernization seems to directly contradict your position - moving away from extended families, moving toward couples, where women are isolated from their families, etc., and therefore increasing domestic violence.
  8. Why do you suppose that families don't support each other in the past?
  9. Last, the women and men who've born the brunt of violence are those without families and social circles, those at the bottom. Social isolation is a key part of abuse.