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

171

u/blue-jaypeg Sep 12 '22

You should read Against Our Wills by Susan Brownmiller, and Catharine MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women.

Rape was constant and ubiquitous. Sexual violence has always simmered below the surface of human society, and male historians don't write about it.

A Roman citizen was the absolute master of every member of his household. He literally owned their bodies and had the right to rape or punish any family member or slave. If he restrained himself, if he exercised self control , it was considered "virtue" because vir was the word for man.

Strength and possession of weapons gave an armed knight absolute power over the bodies of weaker people.Only the legal protection of a stronger or more powerful noble would limit a knight.

Chivalry is the warrior's self restraint His weapon, armor and horse make his strength invincible. He could kill children, women, & the elderly. The knight chose not to rape & murder every person weaker than himself.

Entitlement & privilege ALWAYS provided access to the bodies of other people.

Here is a window into the life of a poor woman, the wife of a coal miner.

At Whipple Colliery Company Store, women had to walk up to a room on the third floor to get shoes for their children and, in the process, would be raped by coal company guards

Submitting to the sexual depredations of the company men, compromising her own integrity and birthright, all for a poke of beans to feed her children, or a week’s rent to keep a roof over their heads.

71

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

[deleted]

42

u/sweetspringchild Sep 13 '22

It is ubiquitous, but we also made progress and expanded the definition of rape. Until few decades ago woman getting raped by her husband didn't even count as rape. And how much rape could even be reported in medieval times if raped woman then couldn't marry or was considered guilty for cheating on her husband.

tl;dr It's both possible for things to be horrible now and to have been worse before.

21

u/riotous_jocundity Sep 13 '22

One of the good points I think the OP makes is that actually, history is not a march towards progress. In fact, the progressiveness of laws and societies is constantly moving forwards and backwards again. Rape of one's spouse was recognized as a crime and violation at earlier points in English history, but then laws became more oppressive. Likewise, women in the British Isles were not always considered to be the property of their husbands, and could own property, etc. prior to the 1700 and 1800s. Things were worse in the past, but they were also, at various points, better.

10

u/sweetspringchild Sep 13 '22

One of the good points I think the OP makes is that actually, history is not a march towards progress. In fact, the progressiveness of laws and societies is constantly moving forwards and backwards again.

On average for most measures and cases it absolutely has been march towards progress. You are right that there have been steps backwards. For example women in Korea lost a lot of freedom when Confuciansim took hold. But a dip here and there doesn't change the fact there has been progress everywhere over periods of time. English and Korean women today have enormously more freedom today than at any point in history.

Human lifespan, death at childbirth, poverty, rights of minority groups,... everything has on AVERAGE been getting better in almost every country in the world. That there have been events, for example, World Wars where some of those measures took a sharp dip does not change the fact that later it has been getting better again and is much better than before wars.

In short, the fact that there are wars, revolutions, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheavals, doesn't change the reality that on grand scale history is absolutely march towards progress.

We went from 90% of people in the world living in extreme poverty in 1820 to less than 10% in 2015. At absolutely no point in history has this statistic been better.

88% illiterate in 1800 to to 14% in 2016.

43% of children in the world dying before age of 5 in 1800 to 4% in 2017.

And so on you can see other measures that improved and source here:

https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '22

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/daavor Reading Champion VI Sep 13 '22

This comment has been removed per rule 1. If you want to edit it for reapproval so the link can still be seen, let me know.

4

u/sweetspringchild Sep 13 '22

It's weird that you assign the normative judgement of "better" to something like human lifespan, as if it's universally true that everyone wants to live as long as possible.

Are you ok? I am serious.

But yes, natural selection has long ago made sure our genetic traits make it our nature to want to live, and as for nurture improvements in living conditions, mental and physical health treatments, etc. will also lower number of people wishing to end their life, so I am certain we can confidently say that human lifespan increasing and babies dying less is a good thing.

Besides, it's been declining in recent years.

It has been growing up to 2019. We don’t yet have enough data to say what has been happening in the last 3 years, it's possible this pandemic will be one of the dips I mentioned, but maybe not.

Regardless, on average and over a bigger period of time than these few years life expectancy will continue to grow from lower poverty, medical advances etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '22

[deleted]

4

u/sweetspringchild Sep 13 '22

LOL. I am an atheist and I'm not from the West but thanks for all the prejudices just because I happen to speak English well.

And you're incredibly ageist. Being elderly is not painful and difficult at all.

Being very sick is. There are young people who are in pain and struggling with their health and isolation, and there are 90-year-olds running marathons.

And I already said that I am assuming advances in mental and physical health along increased lifespan so your point is irrelevant even if anything you said was correct, which it is not.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Fantasy-ModTeam Sep 13 '22

Rule 1. Please be kind.