![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerA few years ago, I got tired of fantasy books about girls who fight against the patriarchy. There’s something very tiresome about watching girl after girl insist that she’s “just as good as the boys”; it’s such a predictable story, and so unnecessary in a fantasy book, where there’s no reason that society has to be patriarchal.
Thus, I decided to build a fantasy setting with matriarchal society. The ground rules:
1. The society must be matriarchal from conception, not formed because women overthrew the men.
2. Men are not trying to overthrow their overladies, because that’s just tiresome. However, there may be men who are trying to carve out roles for themselves that are not traditionally masculine.
3. The story, although it is set in the matriarchy, is not about the matriarchy, anymore than Lord of the Rings is about the patriarchy. The matriarchy is background detail.
4. This is a traditional society, which means it’s conservative. Its values probably are not what we would consider “conservative values,” but whatever they are, the society will hold to them tenaciously, and to the detriment of whoever breaks them.
For the sake of this discussion, so I don’t have to discuss every possible societal iteration, let’s assume that the birth control methods available are about as reliable as birth control in the eighteenth century.
As promiscuous sex is likely to result in pregnancy, promiscuity is frowned on, especially among the young. Youthful pregnancies are too likely to harm the girl (and, unless food is very cheap or the need for labor is very high, too hard on society) for it to be otherwise.
However, in the event that a girl gets in the family way out of wedlock, the blame is probably apportioned more fairly than on Earth. Her paramour is going to be punished just as much as she is.
I suspect, given that this is a traditional society, that they’ll be forced to marry. Not so much to keep the bloodlines neat (assuming a matriarchal society is matrilineal, which won’t necessarily be the case, Daddy’s bloodline is only important insofar as you need to prevent incest) as to create a functioning economic unit to bring up the child.
Admittedly, this is not strictly necessary. There is a society in China where children are brought up by their mothers and uncles, and marriage doesn’t exist, so marriage isn’t the only way to go.
But marriage does have advantages beyond creating an economic unit. It does make it easier to prevent incest; it makes it an imperative for a father to support his offspring (and this imperative would be much better enforced than in a patriarchy); and it makes it easier to punish infidelity. Most women do want their lovers to be faithful, and that’s rather easier to achieve if they’re living together.
Divorce would probably still be difficult because of economic factors, though.
As for how marriage is set up—obviously wife-beating is considered appalling, and the wife probably has the final say (or her mother does).
And then there are the children to consider.
Motherhood would be accorded the respect that soldiering is here—and soldiering the respect we give motherhood. Ergo, soldiering has occasional paeans written to it but it’s basically considered dirty and menial and silly, although necessary, while motherhood is extolled in story and song as great, glorious, honorable, and generally awesome.
Ignore the urge to make the matriarchy have a good attitude to non-mothering women. The patriarchy despises men who don’t make good soldiers; there’s no reason for the matriarchy to be kinder to women who don’t want to mother.
The sticky problem is what, precisely, women are expected to do in order to be good mothers. Have children, obviously (how many probably depends on infant mortality rates; these are important for discussions of female employment and social life, but at the moment the exact number of children is unimportant.). But how much raising is she expected to do?
I doubt she’s expected to stay home until the kids are out of the equivalent of high school.
(As a tangent—a matriarchal society would probably have different boundaries between work and home than we do. A lot of what we regard as office work could easily be done at home, and artisans and farmers routinely worked at home up through the Victorian period. Farmers still do. For the purposes of discussion, by “staying at home” I mean “devoting herself almost entirely to the care of her children and her house.”)
I think it would make sense for her to stay home at least until her children are weaned, because nursing has health benefits both for mothers and children. However, someone could probably make a good argument for upper-class use of wet nurses.
Of course children can be weaned at different ages—in some societies they nurse until they’re about four—and I think that, whether or not her children are nursing till they’re four, that age would be a good age for the kids to be sent out to school (or some sort of baby-sitting facility) and the mother to get a job.
Obviously there are going to be variations, both within and between societies. Any society will have a time they consider ideal for marriage, weaning, pushing a kid out of the nest, but societies will probably vary in how much deviation from the ideal is allowed before said deviation becomes socially problematic.
Part of the fun of a story is watching characters interact with these ideals. Do they follow them? Do they reject them? Do they feel guilty about it?
Obviously this isn’t an exhaustive list of even all the topics covered in sex, marriage, and children. How would a matriarchy view prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy (or polyandry—or polyamory)? What are considered good child-rearing practices? But this post is getting long already, so those will have to wait for another day.
Thoughts?
Thus, I decided to build a fantasy setting with matriarchal society. The ground rules:
1. The society must be matriarchal from conception, not formed because women overthrew the men.
2. Men are not trying to overthrow their overladies, because that’s just tiresome. However, there may be men who are trying to carve out roles for themselves that are not traditionally masculine.
3. The story, although it is set in the matriarchy, is not about the matriarchy, anymore than Lord of the Rings is about the patriarchy. The matriarchy is background detail.
4. This is a traditional society, which means it’s conservative. Its values probably are not what we would consider “conservative values,” but whatever they are, the society will hold to them tenaciously, and to the detriment of whoever breaks them.
For the sake of this discussion, so I don’t have to discuss every possible societal iteration, let’s assume that the birth control methods available are about as reliable as birth control in the eighteenth century.
As promiscuous sex is likely to result in pregnancy, promiscuity is frowned on, especially among the young. Youthful pregnancies are too likely to harm the girl (and, unless food is very cheap or the need for labor is very high, too hard on society) for it to be otherwise.
However, in the event that a girl gets in the family way out of wedlock, the blame is probably apportioned more fairly than on Earth. Her paramour is going to be punished just as much as she is.
I suspect, given that this is a traditional society, that they’ll be forced to marry. Not so much to keep the bloodlines neat (assuming a matriarchal society is matrilineal, which won’t necessarily be the case, Daddy’s bloodline is only important insofar as you need to prevent incest) as to create a functioning economic unit to bring up the child.
Admittedly, this is not strictly necessary. There is a society in China where children are brought up by their mothers and uncles, and marriage doesn’t exist, so marriage isn’t the only way to go.
But marriage does have advantages beyond creating an economic unit. It does make it easier to prevent incest; it makes it an imperative for a father to support his offspring (and this imperative would be much better enforced than in a patriarchy); and it makes it easier to punish infidelity. Most women do want their lovers to be faithful, and that’s rather easier to achieve if they’re living together.
Divorce would probably still be difficult because of economic factors, though.
As for how marriage is set up—obviously wife-beating is considered appalling, and the wife probably has the final say (or her mother does).
And then there are the children to consider.
Motherhood would be accorded the respect that soldiering is here—and soldiering the respect we give motherhood. Ergo, soldiering has occasional paeans written to it but it’s basically considered dirty and menial and silly, although necessary, while motherhood is extolled in story and song as great, glorious, honorable, and generally awesome.
Ignore the urge to make the matriarchy have a good attitude to non-mothering women. The patriarchy despises men who don’t make good soldiers; there’s no reason for the matriarchy to be kinder to women who don’t want to mother.
The sticky problem is what, precisely, women are expected to do in order to be good mothers. Have children, obviously (how many probably depends on infant mortality rates; these are important for discussions of female employment and social life, but at the moment the exact number of children is unimportant.). But how much raising is she expected to do?
I doubt she’s expected to stay home until the kids are out of the equivalent of high school.
(As a tangent—a matriarchal society would probably have different boundaries between work and home than we do. A lot of what we regard as office work could easily be done at home, and artisans and farmers routinely worked at home up through the Victorian period. Farmers still do. For the purposes of discussion, by “staying at home” I mean “devoting herself almost entirely to the care of her children and her house.”)
I think it would make sense for her to stay home at least until her children are weaned, because nursing has health benefits both for mothers and children. However, someone could probably make a good argument for upper-class use of wet nurses.
Of course children can be weaned at different ages—in some societies they nurse until they’re about four—and I think that, whether or not her children are nursing till they’re four, that age would be a good age for the kids to be sent out to school (or some sort of baby-sitting facility) and the mother to get a job.
Obviously there are going to be variations, both within and between societies. Any society will have a time they consider ideal for marriage, weaning, pushing a kid out of the nest, but societies will probably vary in how much deviation from the ideal is allowed before said deviation becomes socially problematic.
Part of the fun of a story is watching characters interact with these ideals. Do they follow them? Do they reject them? Do they feel guilty about it?
Obviously this isn’t an exhaustive list of even all the topics covered in sex, marriage, and children. How would a matriarchy view prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy (or polyandry—or polyamory)? What are considered good child-rearing practices? But this post is getting long already, so those will have to wait for another day.
Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:00 am (UTC)Personally, I would avoid too much emphasis on the mothering/soldiering comparison; it's a little too common in matriachal fantasy, and it's based on our own gender stereotypes. There is nothing to say a matriachal society wouldn't be warlike. Equally, why should a mother need a job: it's what our society says validates a person, because paid employment has been a predominantly masculine area, and for a woman to be validated she must behave in a masculine way. If motherhood itself is what validates a person, then paid employment could be seen as interfering with that.
You'll want to decide how technologically advanced this society is; that will have a massive impact on health, which affects most social issues you mention (weaning, marriage etc). It also affects what work is available, and what is prioritised. Writing and office work is great for 'from home' work, but is dependent not only on a technologically advanced society, but also on the existence of less advanced societies to trade with for basics like food; you can't slant a society towards office work without a source of priarmy production and industry somewhere.
If you're interested in alternatives to patriachal societies, I reccommend Ursula K LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness, and several of James Tiptree Jr/Alice Sheldon's short stories (now that's an interesting sci fi author...). LeGuin's essays (including some on Tiptree; female sci fi and fantasy authors were so rare in the 50s-70s they all got to know each other quite well!). For a bit of historical feminist utopia, there's always Margaret Cavendish, though she's utterly batty.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 12:11 am (UTC)Re: why should a mother need a job? Some will need it for money, but I think you're asking about mothers who are economically secure.
I don't think that the only reason such a woman would want a job is because it's traditionally male and hence magically more validating than women's work. I think some jobs (teaching, lawyering, doctoring, anything artistic or scholarly or religious) are desirable in themselves, and a matriarchal society would structure such jobs so a woman could have one without disrupting family life.
After all, small children don't remain small forever, and at a certain point they stop needing constant maternal supervision. Perhaps at that point, a mother would start a job, first with just a few hours and adding more on as the kids get older and need their parents less.
But I do agree that the current Western obsession with paying work for paying work's sake, even if the job is terrible and staying home would be in every way preferable, would be considered silly. And women who want to stay home certainly wouldn't be considered defective like they seem to be here.
They might consider people who don't want to be mothers defective, though--certainly people who don't like children.
I do think a matriarchal society would still be warlike, although the wars would probably look different than ours. Not necessarily less bloody. Historically, invading armies often killed the men and left the women alive to rape, but if raping the women is prohibitively difficult then they'll probably be killed too.
My working explanation for why the society is matriarchal is that the women are more magical than the men--there's a comment detailing this below--so raping them would, in fact, be prohibitively difficult.
Actually, given that raping the women has always been prohibitively difficult, it's probably not something that invaders would think of. It's never been a viable reproductive strategy.
I think I'm going to be writing at a level of social and technological development where massacring whole towns of your enemies is really not the done thing, though. Massive bloodshed is just terribly unpleasant to write or read about.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 12:46 pm (UTC)Women in charge, I imagine, might pay very little attention to men as intellectual beings. They might almost be pets, or pack animals, used for labour and fertilisation. Or they might be status symbols, a particularly strong or handsome man - maybe they are made to compete?
I'd also recommend The Left Hand of Darkness.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 09:50 pm (UTC)I bet men would do the laundry, for instance. It's hot and unpleasant and wet clothes are HEAVY. But women might still do the ironing and sewing parts.
There would probably be some variation between societies though--different set-ups, and some places will be more hardcore than others. As the posts go on I'll probably narrow in on one specific matriarchal society, as opposed to broad patterns most such societies would share.
I suspect you're right on about women paying very little attention to men as intellectual beings. Almost certainly they make men compete somehow--if you want to be really cynical, sending them off to war in this context is basically a sporting competition.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 12:18 pm (UTC)Otherwise, if the world building goes well, I would love to read a story about a boy who fights against the matriarchy. Are there any out there?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:24 pm (UTC)As for boy fights the matriarchy stories: There's a subplot in Carnival about a man taking up arms against the matriarchy, and a boy who keeps bashing himself against the bars of his societal cage.
If by "fights the matriarchy" you mean takes up arms against it, I don't plan to write that; but if you mean just want a story about a boy who wants out of the army and into some high-status female profession (or something else society doesn't want him to do), then it's entirely possible.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 05:51 pm (UTC)I meant the latter type of "fight the matriarchy" story, with a boy trying to take on a traditionally female career/role.
I will checkout your rec. Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 12:00 am (UTC)Carnival is by Elizabeth Bear, if you're looking for it. I don't know if it's been published in Britain, though.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 05:04 pm (UTC)But I do wonder if it's possible to create a true matriarchy by starting with a patriarchy and reimagining it.
I guess my question is why is the society run by the women instead of the men? It seems to me that the matriarchy that springs from a breeding issue would differ from one that developed because of a change in the hunting/gathering balance.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 09:31 pm (UTC)As for why the world developed as a matriarchy: the women are moderately more magical than the men. The men are still physically stronger, but that doesn't translate into social control because the women can zap them.
Zapping is considered quite bad manners, rather like wife-beating, but it does mean that if a situation degenerates into violence a woman will probably beat a man.
The reason why men are soldiers, despite their lesser zapping abilities, is because biologically speaking they're more expendable. You need a lot less men to breed at replacement rate than you do women.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 01:07 am (UTC)I don't really have anything interesting to say anymore, but the worldbuilding is cool.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:00 am (UTC)If you read 'Jaran', it's got the added benefit of being one of my favourite books, ever, and it defies being slotted into one genre. Although it's probably classified as Sci-Fi, it's so much cooler.
Also, Diana Wynne Jones wrote a short story with a matriarchal AU where a single woman had multiple husbands and children in large, loving, polygamous matriarchal families. Heck, why not? There were also dragons.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 04:13 am (UTC)However, going from the online reviews, I'm dubious about the matriarchal cred of a society where men choose their wives by cutting them with their swords, and the women don't have an out if they get cut. The fact that they are evidently allowed lovers outside of the marriage doesn't mitigate the matter.
Then again, given that the books evidently span galaxies, the Jaran may not be the matriarchal society depicted. In which case, disregard that last paragraph.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 09:48 pm (UTC)The Jaran culture is a true matriarchy, but it makes no pretensions to being an ideal society or an ideal matriarchy. The culture has strengths and weaknesses, and Kate Elliott explores even more in the second and third books some of the implications of living in that kind of society. She's someone who can write awesome, heroic (and loveable) characters that are very human, within a world that's full of shades of grey. I saw some negative reviews for 'Jaran' on Amazon, but they mostly seemed to be from men who were expecting a mainstream sci-fi story and were disappointed. I honestly think that in general men and women read for very different kinds of stories. This is character-driven sci-fi, and it's the kind of sci-fi that I'm happiest reading.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 04:20 am (UTC)...Unless they think there is honour in war? And in which case, they would have to honour their warriors.
And I have another book to add to the list: The Third Magic, by Welwyn Wilton Katz. It has a war between a matriarchy (the Circle) and a patriarchy (the Line).
Oh, and another series: The Thief, The Queen of Attolia and The King of Attolia (by Meghan Whalen Turner), which have two countries that are ruled by Queens. One country is more gender-equal than the other which makes for some interesting conflict (this is addressed more in the second book). They have the added bonus of having amazing world-building and extremely clever plot twists.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 03:44 pm (UTC)Or Britain during the 1700s--war was considered very honorable, but soldiers who were wounded basically got abandoned to their fates.
...now I want to know what the heck kind of mental process drives that kind of thing. Because that's really weird. I think the officers in both cases were taken better care of, so maybe the law makers don't see the enlisted troops as being "really" warriors--because the rank-and-file aren't of the same social class as the lawmakers?
I've read the Thief books (do they have a series name? They need a series name). I'm not sure how gender-equal I would call Eddis, given that all the queen's advisors seem to be men, but certainly it's not as hardcore patriarchal as Attolia.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 11:29 pm (UTC)Maybe Eddis was just in the unique situation of being loved and respected and supported by her entire extended family and so did not have to put up with chauvinism in the same way as Attolia. Hard to say.