OK, this topic came up on the 'Women in Battle' thread and we didn't want to derail, hence the new thread. Original post:



My reply: That brings up an interesting theological point, Aldara. Obviously humans were created as they were for a reason, with the differentiation between the sexes. I wonder how that influences our portrayal of say, dwarves, or elves, where this is not the case: where women are equals or even superior to men?

So, what do y'all think about this?

eru

Hah! I came to reply to this topic, but I guess you know my opinion.

It has to do with their creation. I would not say women are inferior to men but I would say they have different roles in humanity, not one role being necessarily less or more important than the other. I think it would be interesting to have a race where these roles are reversed, their creation would have been different, therefore their roles in their species would be different also.

I would like to point out that women are not the more fragile sex. We have different strengths and weaknesses then men, but I despise fragility in women. Men are stronger, for sure, but that does not make women the fragile sex.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way...

I think the question is not really "Men are stronger, they should fight", but rather, men were created for battle, physically, physiologically, emotionally, and women were not. It comes down to how God created men and women, I think. Strength is such a small part of this discussion.

@Airi: I agree. Actually, what I was meaning to ask (and perhaps didn't do a good job of communicating) is that if God did make the sexes as he did, then why do we have races like the dwarves where women and men are functionally equal? How would that affect the race? What about elves? What about a race where women take the leader's role, sort of like a matriarchal society?

eru

I view a Matriarchal society as being unbiblical, so I find this an interesting twist, and a big statment, when a society is created this way. For example, in the Tritterus project, the Giants (warlike, physical, and ungodly) are very matriarchal. We created this detrimental structure for a reason. I could see this type of society, a society that sees women as superior, sending their women to battle.

And now I'm not sure that really made any sense, or answered that question...

And I like it that way. I'm glad us males get war and not childbirth.

*chuckles * Yeah, my Daddy has quite a bit to say on that subject.

This is a very interesting topic....
I just had this thought, what if the women elves and dwarves and other races were more emotionally equipped to handle war? What if they were created to battle along side men?
What do you guys think about that?...

I guess my question is, where is the need? Why blur the gender lines? Yes, we are dealing with fantasy, but what is truly the purpose of blurring gender differences in a society that tries to do that every day?

We are constantly bombarded with the feminist agenda that there is no difference between men and women. We deal with men trying to take on the roles of women, and women trying to take on the roles of men. So I ask, why promote that more?

I would like to jump in and say that there is no such thing as equality. To paraphrase Killrain from The Killer Angels, no two things in this world are created equal or have an equal change.

To make all people equal would mean to make all people exactly the same. Then, all individuality would be lost, and the very thing called "equality" would be pointless.

By the same token, no man and women can be equal, because their gender differences, physical, emotional, and mental, and spiritual differences, would have to be erased.

Definitely a huge, massive, enormous, "NO!" for me. In my fantasy writing, I follow the cliches: elves are a bit taller and thinner, dwarves are a bit shorter and stockier. However, male-female distinctions stay (let's face it, they're really not that much different than humans). The elf hero guy is still saving the beautiful elf princess, not the elf princess saving the elf guy. That's just messed up.

Male and female roles are constant (for intelligent humanoids?)...We don't need to mess with them. People are doing that plenty already, as Airi pointed out.

I suppose the argument is, "Equal in worth before God." This kinda irks me, though, because I don't desire to see women as equals - I desire to elevate them above myself. Their needs, their problems, their comfort above my own - chivalry.

Just some thoughts, that I hope made sense.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Let's jump to a specific example. What about dwarves? Often we, myself included, just follow Tolkien in that male and female dwarves are very similar. Although Tolkien never mentions specifically female dwarves in battle, and dwarves which accompanied Bilbo were all male.

eru

*shrugs * I've always had an issue with Tolkien's portrayal of the female dwarves.

I still ask, why? Why play off of what the culture is already doing?

Or why go the reactionary route and do the opposite? Why not write your characters as individuals, with their own particular strengths and weaknesses? There are some men whose physical and emotional makeup render them more suited to military action than some women. There are some who are less well suited. There are some women who are brilliant tacticians, some who have developed their physical abilities to a point where they make a better soldier than your average guy and who find that their interests and God-given abilities draw them toward more martial pursuits.

As for males-versus-females being "designed" or "equipped" to fight, neither Adam nor Eve was "designed" for any form of altercation. ~_^

In patriarchal societies, who prepares most of the food in a traditional home? Most likely the women. You could make an argument that women are better equipped to cook than men, or that your average woman is a better cook than your average man, but it doesn't really hold water - there are as many women who are mediocre in the kitchen at best (or even inept) as there are men who meet the same criteria. Then, there are both men and women who have a gift for cuisine.

Do men have an edge over women in hand-to-hand combat because of their physical strength? Sure. However, it's an edge that can be mitigated through training and dedication on a woman's part.

Roundelais, those discussions have been had in the Women in Battle thread. Several of us have already given our opinion on women and men in battle over on that thread. You are welcome to read and comment over there on this subject.

This thread is discussing whether we should alter sentient beings to switch the roles God has given.

I think it would be interesting in a book as long as it is recognized that it is not encouraged or condoned.

Mmm. Bits of the original topic had bled over into this one, but frankly I'd apply my philosophy to any skill set (as shown by the cookery example). I didn't see any examples in this thread of non-fighting-related gender roles, so I went with what was available.

What other areas would you care to discuss regarding responsibilities? Both sexes participate in child-rearing, both maintain the home through various methods and to varying degrees based on their aptitudes. In common Christian philosophy the onus lies on the husband for resource procurement, but in the Biblical description of a virtuous woman she's described as running her business well. Women and men provide for their families in different ways when in partnership.

The discussion isn't what are the roles of men and women, but should we alter the roles ordained by God.

If you don't tell me what you consider those to be, how am I to tell you whether I think they should be altered?

We have a thread around here somewhere... *looks for link elves * On the roles of men and women. I'm just trying to keep this on topic. We have so many of these threads.

Here. viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1841

*loves her link elves!! * *kisses Aussie's cheek *

*beams*

* tiptoes into thread * * has five cents to add *



Why not have a culture similar to the one we have today? Why would we have a perfectly wonderful culture without feministic beliefs or equality in-between the two genders? Why would we make a culture shaped to our own beliefs? If we did that, we'd end up with a utopia...

We have main characters that murder to show that that's wrong. We make characters that are immodest to show the consequences of that. So why not have a culture that has both men and women equal in rank to show what the consequences there are in that?

We could take the example of Tolkien's dwarves that somebody brought up (Think it was Andrés...) that both the female and the male dwarves are very similar, but if you think about it, the dwarf race itself, while successful in other areas, were terribly immoral. They cared too much about gold and riches, etc. And I don't ever recall hearing about the dwarves valuing family? (correct me if I'm wrong...or...just...don't. It's my bad, I'm not a Tolkien geek. )

Anyways, maybe the dwarves were Tolkien's example as to what bad would come of a culture like theirs.

So why wouldn't we make a culture with this fault? Why don't we make a culture like that and then have it crumble to the ground because it's lacking in moral standards or family-guided lifestyles? Just like everything else in our writing, we could take something extremely bad and use it as an example as what not to do.

And I'm not entirely sure if that rant was worth adding, but that's what came to mind when Airianna kept asking that... Sorry. I'll stop talking now and let the sane people deal with the controversy I probably just created.

* rushes out of thread *

Bethany Faith

That...is an amazing point, Bethany. It gives me reasons for some events in my world now!

eru

Very true. I think that's sort of how I do things.

( Dwarves did value family)

"Datdada... I'm dead."

I figured I would be wrong with that example somewhere, but oh well, I tried.

* walks out of thread again *

Let's see if I'm still following what everyone's saying.
In my example, I was mostly thinking for battle only. In times of peace, in fact, most of the time, halfelven women are like human women. They have mostly the same place in society. The only time they step out of that role is to fight. This is because they aren't in any more danger. Besides that, halfelven see emotion as a strength, so they would probably say that a more emotional women makes a better defender. I'm not entirely sure yet why they think that way. So I probably wouldn't be altering their roles very much.
Yes, the differing consequences of women fighting or not will be shown. I'm just wondering what you thought about them fighting if they were more equal as far as capacity for battle goes.

Now, I could be misinterpreting what you're trying to say here (pardon me of I am), but it seems to me that you're confusing "Equal" and "Different." Things can be different and still be equal. Women and men are completely and totally different. But their roles, I strongly believe, are equal. Society can't function properly without women fulfilling their roles, and society can't function without men fulfilling theirs. Different roles, but equal ones.

Anyway. Off topic.

A more on topic reply: I don't think it would be that huge of an issue, as long as you make it clear that this is the way that race functions, and is not the ideal model for us humans.

But I do agree with Airi. Why? It's an interesting idea, but at the same time, one has to remember who one is writing for. Our readers aren't elves whose gender roles in society are swapped.

So all in all, I think it would work, but you'd have to be careful.

Welp, I've looked through the other thread, and the only roles mentioned seemed to involve religious leadership and.... warfare. It still doesn't give me a lot to work with, but here goes.





I'm not attempting to derail the thread, but I think it'll be easier to explain my thoughts on the question if I provide a rundown of my world view. >_<

My perspective on Earth-default: Young men should prepare to support/protect themselves, and eventually their wives and children should it be God's plan for them to have a wife and children. (Support, in this context, meaning to provide the necessary resources that have to be obtained outside the home.) Young women should be prepared to support and protect themselves - while that would be their husband's primary responsibility if/when they marry, a gal shouldn't sit twiddling her thumbs while she waits for her intended mate, and there can be extenuating circumstances where a woman has to step up to the plate if her husband is either unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities (taking into account, of course, situations where the inability is beyond the fella's control - such as death or disability). A marriage is an equal partnership - one partner supports the family unit by leaving the home and procuring the resources that can't be produced internally, while the other supports the family unit by performing the daily actions that have to be performed regularly for the home to function smoothly.

In my own home, I'd have to say that the classical Western model where the husband provides the monetary income and the wife provides the domestic support is what works best. I was the primary income-generator for the first four years of our marriage, and I found it fairly stressful. I also like to think that I'll be better instinctually suited to be the primary caregiver for whatever children we may eventually have than my husband would be.

But. (And here's where I'll get into trouble, no doubt.) Human beings aren't stamped out with cookie cutters, and while men in general and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses that can be observed among a good percentage of the groups as a whole, the individuals in the groups can have strengths and weaknesses that go against type. I don't hold that it's morally wrong or unbiblical for them to have those differences from the common denominator. Ideally, God provides us with a spouse whose strengths and weaknesses complement our own. While I agree that it's a good idea to encourage a particular setup as a rule of thumb, I'd hate to see the square pegs subject to disapproval and judgement from the Christian community just because they don't fit in the round holes.


My perspective in a fantasy world: There are multiple factors to take into consideration, honestly. Do your characters live in a fallen world? Did that world fall in the exact same way ours did, or were there different factors that would influence the dynamic between males and females? Are your humans transplants from Earth, or are they descended from another line. In your world did God set the very same rules as He's set here, or has He perhaps altered the "experiment" a bit, and provided a bit of additional dispensation based on His salvation plan for that world? Personally, in the worlds I've been working on, I've decided that there are a few things He'd be willing to tweak, though in my case it was so that He'd allow the use of magic (which is usually a neutral force that could be used for good or ill in those worlds - as opposed to here, where in my opinion you can either have God-sponsored miracles or situations where a demon might lend a hand to lead sinners further astray).

Where other races are concerned, I don't see why our creative God would make them after the model of human beings, only with their stats buffed. He didn't copy us after the angels (who are, by many accounts, genderless - and who don't enter into marriage partnerships), and while both men and women are created in His image (which has both masculine and feminine aspects, according to scripture) He's obviously not male and female. Having created at least two distinct forms of beings, He could easily move on to create additional unique peoples with cultures that look like nothing we could ever even imagine, and they would still be good.

If your primary aim in writing fantasy is to use it as a tool to instruct your readers in how things ought to function in this world, then you've already set your agenda and you know your own answer. If you're more interested exercising your imagination and exploring what a world might look like IF God chose to do something differently (as Jack did, writing his stories about what it MIGHT look like if God had chosen to populate a land with talking animals, and to appear among them as a Lion), then you can certainly branch out and have individuals interact in a different way than they do in the real world.


Oh, and for what it's worth - Tolkien's Dwarves are something of an oddity. In Middle Earth there are two races that are the Children of Iluvatar (God) - elves, and men. The Dwarves were created by Aule, one of the Ainur (or greater angels), whose specialty happened to be craftsmanship.




Aule's wife Yavanna created the Ents, but that's another story. (And another interesting study in the marital dynamics of fantasy races!)

Bethy, I'm sorry, but you misunderstood my question entirely. I have no issues with perverting a culture and showing that the issues/faults/sins have detrimental effects. My question is, why have the "god figure" create a perverted culture to start out with? Why would the god figure do that? Why create a gender swap culture when God has obviously chosen men and women to be as they are already? I have no issue with display culture perversion. I have an issue with a god figure creating a perverted culture. God created us perfect, we pervert that perfection. Why would the creator in anyone else's culture, who is supposed to represent God, do something God would not?

Okay, Airi, you're correct. I did misunderstand your question. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question, then. Since that is a good point. So I'll leave that someone else.

Okay...I think I was misunderstood. I meant to say more what Aldara said:


In my example, I was mostly thinking for battle only. The only time they [The women of other races] would step out of that role is to fight. This is because they aren't in any more danger.
Because this is not how God made them to be there would be consequences. I'm just wondering what you thought about them fighting if they were more equal as far as capacity for battle goes.

That's what I meant to ask. For me, it's wrong for a woman to fight if there are no men to fight in her place. If there are, then it is not her place to fight. Defense and battle are totally different. (I'm going to stop talking on that now so this won't go off topic). If I were to make females and males of other races more similar I would have to show the consequences of that. And I can tell you, they would not be pleasant, because, that is not how God intended us or the other races to be. Anyways, my question was just about battle, like Aldara said.
Does that make any more sense now?

Oh, and Bethany, that is such an amazing thought.

Airi, I agree. I apologize for not thinking that through when I asked my question. Sorry about that.

No need to apologize! I must not have explained myself well enough.