I must admit that I expected a bit more response on the previous post of this series. I've gotten a private comment or two, but mostly about feeling dissatisfied with my conclusions, not in refutation. I'd summarize the post, but I want you to go read it and come back... I'll wait.
*whistling*
There, now that we're all on the same page, I want to continue the thought experiment. The goal is not to have women as the power behind the throne, or for limited duration, but to make them sustainable authority figures. I've been doing some thinking on the subject and returning to my scientific roots to provide an alternate approach. The essence of that being: if we are trying to create a different outcome (females ascendant) while maintaining the subject (humans), then we need to change the conditions that affect the subject.
Simply removing the physical dangers, that give men value in the evolutionary scheme, should theoretically work. With no need for that role, those big brutish males (if they persist) might then become a labor force for the women, building and farming their lives away. Unfortunately, that doesn't really fit with a "Fantasy" world filled with fantastic creatures (who usually like to cause a ruckus). Modern humans aren't especially troubled by the natural world, but seem to have plenty of need for strength and violence when contending with our own species. Removing the need for violence would require planet-wide peace (though maybe a small isolated population could work). This holds some possibilities for a Sci/Fi creation, but not really what I want. Similarly, guns provide some balance in terms of equalizing force potential, but things always seem to come down to close quarters work (see: all wars, excepting the Pacific Theater ending of WWII).
Active gods are a quite simple way to establish any societal rule. "Women run things because God said so," is much more reasonable than many of the laws established in religious texts the world over. Many works of fiction put women in positions of influence using religion, but not control. In an unstable and violent world, making this sustainable would require that these women can call upon the power of the gods with some regularity (and the men can't in the same way/scale). Perhaps the god identifies as female, being a Mother Goddess, or prefers female worshipers just because he/she feels like it (I'm not going to dispute with a god). The power provided to these worshipers need not be physical, though that would simplify things. Necessary levels of intervention would vary depending on the stability of the society.
Trade is a possible gateway to egalitarianism, though not especially likely to make women ascendant (that would probably need some kind of additional nudge). A society focused on long-distance trade would require strong women to keep the home fires burning. Robin Hobb employs this concept in her The Liveship Traders series. Business owners away for months or years can be a leadership vacuum. This could create a real husband/wife partnership in the business and consequently alter societal norms. Wealth is often connected with political power, thus the women might start having a voice in politics as proxies for absent husbands and then eventually in their own right (are you not watching "Vikings" on the History channel?). Historically, the owners of the ships and their cargoes were not often the ones on the boat, but it's your world, make it happen.
Property is the measure of power in most Medieval societies. Kings may have been ordained by God, but without the nobles paying tribute (the King of France did not own France per se, much like the Emperor of Japan was given an allowance by his lords) they were up the creek. Women became extremely desirable matches if they were well endowed (with money and property (come on people, stay with me)) or sole heirs to their fathers' fortunes. Control of that land then passed to their husbands. It is conceivable that you could devise a society which allows the inheritance of land and title only through the female line to simplify succession (it is her kid) and protect the ladies. Women often ran the household, directing servants and doing the books (freeing men to focus on doing business), is it such a big step from there to having them run domestic policy? Let the King play warlord while the Queen controls the purse strings and thus the kingdom. It wouldn't take long for the lower classes to follow suit.
I'd love to suggest some deeper society specific changes to make, but some ideas seem so ingrained, that it's tough to mess with them. Part of the conversation following the "Avengers" movie has been the continued sexualization/objectification of women in comic books and their films (which is certainly true). An interesting point is that both genders are sexualized (sexualization being based on what makes either gender attractive to the other) in these mediums. Scarlett Johansson is certainly selected for her build, but it's no different than Chris Hemsworth or any of the other men in the "superhero" cast (the baddie is relatively reedy). Even Iron Man has clearly defined muscles built into his suit, just like depictions of Fantasy heroins often have breast emphasizing chest protectors. When you hear about the diets and routines that these guys go through to get into that kind of shape, it is as unrealistic (though probably less damaging) as the "ideal" that is established for women. The difference is in the male/female audience response to these images and why they respond that way (I would postulate that it's related to moving away from the violent society and the subsequent changing requirements of "provider" which has broadened what is considered sexually appealing in men).
In many ways, nothing has changed. Modern society is still primitive. Motivating factors have not changed that much and evolutionary imperatives are not so easy to turn off. Exemplary individuals and outliers certainly exist, but it isn't so easy to invent a stable society which maintains human females in ascendance. Starting with the limitation of a Medieval type setting, the opportunities decrease substantially. Perhaps we should instead strive to create a world where men and women work hand in hand, each using their abilities to complement the other for the benefit of all.
So what do you think? Any ideas? I'm asking for help and insight here.
No comments:
Post a Comment