It’s easy to understand why men oppress women. Usually, that’s just naked self-interest. But it’s harder to imagine that women, including left-leaning and feminist women, could construct entire worlds that reinforce misogyny. Yet they do. In fact, we see it so often in editing, it suggests many published works exhibited these problems before they were revised.
Despite reinforcing patriarchy, these stories are still largely tailored for the tastes of women. This shows us how women pursue fulfillment in heavily patriarchal cultures and, in doing so, inadvertently spread sexist propaganda to other women.
Succumbing to Gender Pessimism
A titan of fantasy, Ursula K. Le Guin was a leftist, and she certainly considered herself a feminist. But reading some of her books, you wouldn’t know that. The first book of her Earthsea series focuses on a male wizard named Ged, and Le Guin strongly implies women’s magic is weaker and also more evil.
Her second book in the series, The Tombs of Atuan, was written to be more woman-centric. But despite being a priestess, the main character has no magic. What’s more, Ged shows up to tell her what to do. This hardly refutes the notions of male superiority baked into the first book.
It’s not hard to imagine why a woman would write a history-inspired story with a patriarchal culture. Our own cultures are patriarchal, and our histories usually even more so. Depicting this gives fictional settings an aura of realism. That doesn’t mean this is always the best choice, but regardless, it’s understandable.
However, it’s more baffling when women extend this thinking to the fantastical. Why design a futuristic space setting that’s as patriarchal as medieval Europe? As for magic, not only is it purely made up, but it’s usually presented as an immutable law of the universe rather than a social construct. So why would a feminist writer invent alternate physics that mark women as inferior?
The nice thing about being an editor is that you can ask questions like these of the writers directly. The answer we’ve found is that these writers want equality, but they’ve come to believe some facets of patriarchal propaganda. First, they may pessimistically think that patriarchy is an inevitable part of the human condition. Second, they often have exaggerated ideas about male muscle strength in particular and its importance to gender.
As a result, they see their own universe as inherently favoring men. They feel that by inventing societies where men rule or designing magic that favors men, they are simply being realistic. According to this skewed worldview, even the level of equality many women have today would be too fanciful for a fictional world.
This matters, because what we demand is closely tied to what we expect. One reason fascism is on the rise is that men have been taught to expect a level of subservience from women, and they haven’t been getting it. This entitlement over women leads to anger that motivates men to abandon democracy in favor of enforcing an unfair social order.
If women don’t think genuine equality is even possible, much less something we are entitled to, then we will have trouble mustering similar energy in defense of our rights. This is why everyone desperately needs stories that show us a better world – to normalize equality and raise expectations.
Dispelling Patriarchal Propaganda
If our misinformation crisis has taught me one thing, it’s that belief is largely a matter of community consensus. We come to accept whatever the people around us repeat as fact. And when men have the most power, ideas that serve them gain more steam and skew the way we see the world.
To understand how much this patriarchal propaganda has distorted our view of gender and society, we need a reality check. Let’s start with muscle strength.
Pop quiz: Which requires more strength, wielding a two-handed great sword or carrying a baby?
For the sword, let’s say it’s the biggest imaginable: the zweihänder, a medieval mercenary sword so big it couldn’t be sheathed at the hip. This monster was up to seven feet long! As for weight, it maxed out at… Are you ready? Less than nine pounds.
Of course, we also need to account for use. These swords are not only wielded with both arms, but they are generally moved around, not held up in one position. This distributes the burden between different muscles and gives muscles more chance to rest.
Now let’s look at babies. Today, newborn babies are typically about 6-10 pounds. By the time they are a year old, their weight usually triples, making them about 18-30 pounds.
Generally, carrying a baby requires holding it in one position for extended lengths of time. Of course, sometimes the baby might be placed on a hip, or some other assistance could be used. But it’s also not uncommon for women to hold a baby in one arm while they do something with the other.
Altogether, I think we can safely conclude it takes more strength to carry a baby. And that makes perfect sense, because a lighter sword offers an advantage in a fight. The man who uses a ridiculously heavy sword to prove his manliness will soon be too dead to care anymore.
Yet a ridiculous number of stories present a typical long sword (four to six pounds) as something only a man can lift. And this imagined strength difference is exclusively applied to gender. Older, smaller, or injured men are rarely presented as too weak to lift swords, yet every woman in her prime is unfit for the task. Of course, she is never unfit to carry a baby.
Here’s the thing: cis men aren’t that much bigger or stronger than cis women. And our culture is partly responsible for men being stronger, because they are encouraged to do strength-intensive activities, whereas women are not. Even with this social factor, some women are stronger than most men, because this is an average difference, not a universal rule. An athletic young woman is likely to overpower an elderly or sedentary man.
Even more importantly, muscle strength is only a small component of human ability. Cis women have their own advantages that are rarely mentioned. That includes better immune systems and superior endurance. While everyone makes a big deal out of men’s spatial awareness, women appear to have better color perception. Modern women don’t have a longer life expectancy for no reason.
Now, I want you to think of one of the most powerful men in the world. Go ahead, pick one.
Ask yourself: Did he require unusually high muscle strength to gain his position? Probably not. He might claim he is strong to improve his image, but strength likely had nothing to do with him gaining power. Even if he started in a combat position, guns were likely far more important to him than muscle strength. Women are just as good with guns as men, if not better.
You might ask: If male strength isn’t that important, why are human societies inclined toward patriarchy? Probably because human pregnancy is extremely burdensome and even dangerous. And when many children died, women needed more successful pregnancies to reach replacement rate. But since the start of the Industrial Revolution, medical care has improved, we’ve gained more reliable birth control, and life expectancy has grown. And what do you know, many societies became less patriarchal after these improvements!
Now let’s go back to that powerful dude you thought of. Did he come from a rich, powerful, or generally privileged family? Probably yes. A legacy of power almost certainly gave him a leg up. And this is also a huge factor in continued patriarchy. When men have all the power, they can use that power to stop women from gaining a foothold.
So instead of justifying why patriarchy persists, maybe we should be asking how women have managed to raise our status even though men have the home-field advantage. Perhaps it’s because some men do the right thing, or maybe it’s because women’s superior social skills (which are likely cultural, but it’s hard to say) are more economically valuable than men’s larger size and strength. But whatever the reason, why would it reverse if we went into space?
Male power isn’t an inherent, inevitable law of the universe; it is shaped by the society we live in. Technology, medicine, culture, and economics all play a role in increasing or eliminating patriarchy. When we treat patriarchy as immutable, we end up creating worlds we’ve resigned ourselves to instead of the best worlds we can build.
Vying for False Empowerment
Once women accept patriarchy as a fact of life, they seek to create wish fulfillment and empowerment within the bounds of male dominance. But because they are intentionally limiting the female characters in their stories, the false empowerment of a single heroine comes at a cost to women as a whole.
For some authors like Ursula K. Le Guin, this means creating gendered magic. For instance, in her novel Gifts, she created a family line with magical laser eyes that could explode their enemies. But this power is only given to men in the family. Women can pass on the ability but never wield it. Instead, the female protagonist can talk to animals, a power that no male characters get.
When a worldbuilder segregates their magic by gender, men’s power is almost always depicted as greater, even when that isn’t intended. Because the worldbuilder has bought into gender stereotypes, they’ll give men powers intended to represent their violent dominance.
Women, on the other hand, usually have powers designed to be passive or subtle. This might be designed to reflect women’s “hidden power” or “feminine mysteries.” But this is a framing of womanhood created by patriarchy. So it inevitably portrays women as weaker, more servile, or if negative stereotypes are present, manipulative.
When men are seen as automatically superior, writers give up on creating female characters who best them. Instead of writing a heroine who is the chosen one destined to save the world, the heroine might be the chosen “female,” who gets to date the male chosen one who will save the world. Likewise, only men might wield magic – with the exception of the heroine, who also gets magic. Then this special lady is accepted into the boys’ club.
Such stories relegate women to a secondary role in the universe. Then to deliver wish fulfillment and empowerment, the heroine is presented as special for a woman. For this to work, the cool men are placed on top, the heroine is depicted as secondary to them, and then every other woman is placed under her. The heroine is then given the validation of men as a consolation prize for her inferior status.
Unsurprisingly, it’s often accompanied by the “not like other girls” trope, in which women in general are disparaged as vain, frivolous, shallow, too girly, etc., so that the heroine can look good in comparison.
The recent romantasy hit Shield of Sparrows by Devney Perry is a prime example of this false empowerment. To be clear, I don’t think Perry intended to spread misogynist messages. She includes some queer characters in the book and describes what is clearly her favorite kingdom, Turah, as gender egalitarian. Perry wouldn’t do that unless she believed men and women should have equal status.
Even so, the book starts by immediately pitting the main character, Odessa, against her sister Mae for the title of Sparrow. This “Sparrow” is just the princess who must marry the crown prince of Turah to fulfill a treaty, so it’s hardly a reward. Yet being chosen instead of Mae is clearly meant to make Odessa feel special. In the process, Mae is disparaged using negative stereotypes about women.
Once she is chosen, Odessa is continually demeaned by the Turan men who chose her as Sparrow against her own wishes. She overcomes this not by besting them but by proving herself to them. In one scene, she demands to learn combat, and then to prove she can, she struggles to hold a sword – which again, is nine pounds at the very most – for just a few moments.
Yet later, Odessa uses these same noodle arms to pick up a little boy and carry him while also climbing a rope ladder.
Even though the inheritance of Turah is supposed to be gender-neutral, Perry can’t bring herself to depict a single woman with significant power in this society. This is because the false empowerment Odessa receives depends on the disempowerment of other women.
When women lose hope of competing at the same level as men, their desire for wish fulfillment gives them an incentive to cut other women down.
Letting Go of Gender Stereotypes
Let’s take a moment to give gender-segregated magic a reality check.
- Do women lack the ability to walk like men do, forcing us to hop slowly from one spot to another?
- Do women lack the opposable thumbs that men have, forcing us to use both hands when lifting most objects?
- Do women lack the jaw strength to chew our food like men, leading us to vomit digestive juices onto our plates so we may first soften our meals?
I say this to emphasize that our sexual dimorphism is minuscule compared to the abilities we have in common. Almost all differences between cis men and cis women are merely averages, and they fall on a bell curve. The inherent features we have that are completely different are directly related to reproduction. Even then, there are intersex people who do not fit neatly in either category.
In most fantasy works, magic is so powerful that it dwarfs every other ability characters possess. Buff biceps are nothing next to laser eyes. This makes magic a terrible stand-in for sexual dimorphism, because it would exaggerate our differences so much we would practically be different species. And realistically, those magical power differences would have huge effects on society.
If men had more powerful fantasy magic, it would result in a society that’s much, much more patriarchal than anything we’ve ever had. Forget historical societies in which women were merely property; this would be exceedingly worse.
On the other hand, if you just give everyone similar powers, you have a lot more leeway to do what you want with gender dynamics. That’s because equal powers don’t call attention to themselves. While they would probably encourage an egalitarian society, if you want to portray a matriarchy or patriarchy, readers are unlikely to find it unrealistic.
Using advanced technology rather than magic? Judging by the real world, this should also have an equalizing effect. Robots can quickly render muscle obsolete, and better medical technology would mean pregnancy gets easier yet. Artificial wombs might remove the burden altogether. Given that our society has been getting less patriarchal, and high-tech worlds usually take place in the future, some readers may expect these settings to be egalitarian.
Of course, you could always introduce changes to the setting that incline it toward patriarchy. And we can’t know for certain how society would be affected by technology anyway. But when considering how to portray gender in your world, I recommend keeping two things in mind.
First, emphasizing the differences between women and men helps patriarchy, especially if those difference are presented as inborn and immutable. It’s hard to justify why men should have control over women if men and women are basically the same. On the other hand, any differences that societies buy into can be used to argue why men should be in charge.
Second, it’s better to err on the side of a fairer world. Unless you have a strong reason to do otherwise, show readers the world you want to see. This inspires other writers to follow suit, normalizing egalitarianism and motivating everyone to fight for their rights.
Unfortunately, the typical new writer does just the opposite, depicting oppression out of a sense of obligation, regardless of whether it serves their story. The glut of stories that depict patriarchy for no discernible reason only reinforces a cycle of gender pessimism. And as we’ve seen, even feminists are not immune.