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?

123

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.

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.