writing, gender, and stuff

[anotheranon]

She doesn't post often, but posts well: just found another thought provoking article over at Brutal Women about the disappointment when fictional female-dominated societies turn out not to be, so much. I've not read the book in question, but she makes some interesting points - the society described reads as "female-dominant" only by virtue of there being more women than men, and the men are given great freedom to use and abuse due to their "rare" status:

Great! A female-dominated society, and girl babies are still greeted as gutter trash. One royal husband also abuses his wives and brutally rapes one of them. And guess what? Because he's a guy, he goes unpunished.

How does this fulfill the "things can be really different?" school of spec. fic.?

Disclaimer: I'm not a professional writer or gender studies student. However, I dabble in both and got to thinking - how would one create a fictional women-dominated society? I wrote a storyline once that involved a female-dominated society of evolved ants, but it wasn't that challenging - ant colonies ARE mostly female; in most species males only live long enough to mate. How to write it with people? Could women really be dominant without being a numeric majority? What would be different, and what would stay the same?

Maybe I've just not read a really good story on this theme - I am new to reading sci fi. Readers, writers - any suggestions beyond what's in the Brutal Women comments?

Comments

[kat1392.livejournal.com]

From my reading experience, I haven't come across many, if any, books that deal with a matriarchal society. Most show the genders as equal. I do believe, however, stories can be written from a matriarchal point of view. How one would go about that, however, I don't know for sure. Since it is fiction, not much has to be drawn from RL. If that was the route a writer wanted to take, he/she could always rework historical events.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how reworking of historical events could be plausible without furious explanation/rationalization. Think of most of Western history - there were very definite sex roles for specific (if incorrect) reasons and simply reversing everything wouldn't be "enough", I think. You'd almost have to re-create "feminine" and "masculine" stereotypes from scratch, and then make them believable to a reader who is the product of 2000 years of cultural indoctrination of what men and women "should" be.

I'd love to read it, but I'm not sure what I'd expect.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

Quoting myself from a comment to our hostess:

... seems to me that to make an alternate history really work, what one would have to do is make some adjustments to human evolution; that's easiest done by studying our relatives. Bonobos and olive baboons* both have female-dominant hierarchies ... transfer the mechanics of one of those to our own ancestors, stir well, and then move forward in time and start scribbling. :-)

*For you writer-types that are feeling adventurous: I haven't had much luck tracking down a decent single tome on bonobos (I'll own it the minute I find one) ... what's out there tends to be long on pictures and short on text, so your best bet is scientific articles; there's a few reasonably informative Websites out there as well. For olive baboons, the best source is Shirley Strum's Almost human.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

When I've come across fantasy/SF of the female dominant variety, it has tended to be rather hostile to men, as well as not being very convincing or feasible. The only exception that immediately comes to my mind (and very handily too, since you're planning on sampling her work) is C.J. Cherryh's The Pride of Chanur (and its sequels). Not a human culture, but there's definitely female dominance (and it's a marvelous read).

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

Felinoids - interesting! I personally find dominant female kitties to be very plausible :P

See what I commented to Katie re: feasibility. As for the hostility towards men angle, it could be argued that stereotypical male and female roles are often very hostile to women (yes, I've been reading feminist blogs, can't you tell?), so this might actually be in line with a plausible "world", if not an ideal one :/

Re: Cherryh - I started "Foreigner" last night and am intrigued by the pilots who require drugs to keep up with navigation - kind of seems like the whole "I drink coffee to keep up with my schedule" modern phenomena writ very large...

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

I agree that the stereotypical roles are often female-hostile, which, to me, means that simply reversing the situation just isn't very original ... it's merely the fiction equivalent of "getting even". I'm more likely to be intrigued by a writer who moves beyond that and tries to create something whose origins are plausible and that is sustainable.

Read what you said to Katie ... seems to me that to make an alternate history really work, what one would have to do is make some adjustments to human evolution; that's easiest done by studying our relatives. Bonobos and olive baboons* both have female-dominant hierarchies ... transfer the mechanics of one of those to our own ancestors, stir well, and then move forward in time and start scribbling. :-)

P.S. Regarding piloting drugs/coffee ... see, ya shoulda been a space shuttle pilot. ;-)

*For you writer-types that are feeling adventurous: I haven't had much luck tracking down a decent single tome on bonobos (I'll own it the minute I find one) ... what's out there tends to be long on pictures and short on text, so your best bet is scientific articles; there's a few reasonably informative Websites out there as well. For olive baboons, the best source is Shirley Strum's Almost human.

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

In my mind to believe in the theory of evolution means to believe that there are real forces that have guided things to be as they are now, even if those forces may not be obvious, and even if the current situation isn't the only possible solution.

Lots of people will jump right to human bipedalism, and say that the changes to hipbone geometry forced humans to be more neotenous. That in turn means someone or some group has to care for the young for a relatively long period of time. There's more than one way to solve this problem, but any solution Nature chooses will tend to imprint itself onto what society considers "natural" gender roles. If Nature, or an author, chooses a very different solution one might expect the resulting society to look very different.

Apart from that almost all animal societies have evolutionary pressures in some areas but not in others. (Odds are against the latter type making it.) Matters of food, shelter and predators, especially as they change with the seasons, have a big impact on many species. Do they migrate to follow food or shelter, or to mate? Do they change color at various times of the year? When should they mate so that the young will be born at the most favorable time? Modern urban humans are so successful we many not think of these pressures much anymore, but they play a big role for nonhumans and in many "primitive" societies. Again, a different set of pressures might well lead Nature to very different solutions, and thus different societies.

What if human children were more independent, and could crawl well and feed themselves by 1 month of age, and walk by 2 months? Or if there was no real difference between men and women as far as biological ability and desire to care for the young? Would women still be more likely to care for the young? Would men still be more likely to rove and hunt? Or would the situation be more balanced? Women are generally considered better at social interaction, while men are considered to have the edge in spatial skills. Would this still be true if women were more likely to roam and men more likely to form complex social networks?

What if environmental pressures played to areas where women are strong and men are weak? For instance what if tacnukes were legal and cost $20, or psi powers were common and deadly? What would the surviving part of that society look like? I bet it'd be long on politeness and talking things out, and very short on fly-off-the-handle. [No pun intended.]

Change the forces that shape a society, whether biological or environmental, and you change the society itself.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

Or if there was no real difference between men and women as far as biological ability and desire to care for the young?

I would argue that this is biologically the case; I think the reason women have been the primary caregivers through much of human history is because they are the ones who give birth and lactate - I imagine that leaving the children with the women who bore them was just easier in premodern societies, before things like bottles and diapers.

Sorry if I jumped on this first thing - your comment makes many other interesting points that I'll try and comment on later, but this one stood out for me because the idea that "women are natural nurturers" has always been a particular bugbear of mine because it stands behind almost every myth about the "biological clock", the assumption that all women somehow innately know how to care for children, women shouldn't have careers because they'll inevitably quit to have babies, etc. I'm living proof that this isn't the case - if I were a cat, I'd eat my kittens :P Yet I've met several men who would be fantastic as stay-at-home dads.

Strayed a bit there, sorry.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

You point out the interesting possibility - what if children grew up faster? Or, what if the male parent was needed more immediately in the care of the child - would parenting roles even out?

Other ideas to throw around - would women be more likely to be assigned the physical labor/hunting duties if they were physically larger than males? What if humans had a specific "mating season" with external indicators like so many other species (including chimpanzees)?

I know, no answers, but it's early...