Lord - Vassal Relationship in Fiction

Sorry, if this is too off-topic but I couldn't think of where else to put it and didn't particularly want to start a new thread for it. I did consider OTC, but since I'm looking at it as a writer...

It concerns Lord - Vassal relationships in fiction obviously, specifically versions where one is male and the other is female

Okay this is based on an argument I saw someone on another site put forward and I wanted to hear some opinions.

This person put forward the idea that if you have a male in the role of Lord and a female in the role of the vassal, then the dynamic is inherently sexist. They argued that it was because it plays in to male power fantasy; the implication that this woman would have to follow your orders, no matter what they are.

They also seemed to be implying that this implication exists regardless of context.

I disagreed, under the belief that context can tell you a lot about how you're supposed to view a relationship between two characters.

I am not entirely sure on how to point out their assertion is both technically correct and deeply flawed. Yes, the setup is on the surface misogynistic. (I would point out the reverse is inherently misandristic as well; it does no credit to anyone to pretend women do not have fantasies about control.) This does not mean that everything which results from it must of necessity be bad.

Because a story incorporates cultural elements you do not like means only that it incorporates cultural elements you do not like. There is historical precedent for intensely misogynistic relationships of this sort and if your society is parallel to that, well, that's the price of admission. A writer who refuses to write anything they think is ugly isn't much of a writer.

At the same time, just because someone can execute a juvenile power fantasy or even has a juvenile power fantasy does not mean they will actually do it. It may never come up, one or both parties may struggle to avoid that scenario, someone may realize that it's possible or daydream it and then react with horror.

It's only sexist if they treat their female vassals differently from their male ones. In a culture where formal relationships are inherently authoritarian and hierarchical, you cant expect modern sensibilities.

It's also historically inaccurate. The liege/vassal relationship was a highly complex and highly individual arrangement, not a one-size-fits-all "you must do exactly as I say in everything" deal. Each pair (liege/vassal) would negotiate their own agreement. It rarely included the right of the liege to give orders that the vassal must obey; it was more often a contract of military service on demand for up a specified number of men and a specified number of days per year plus a monetary payment, in return for a land holding and the right to call on the liege for protection and succor at need.

It's honestly a bit silly.

If we have some sort of highly egalitarian fantasy setting with feudalism intact, with lady knights and reigning ladies and what-not, then it power and authority would be split fairly evenly between the genders/etc.

And because of that, there will be scenarios where lords have female knights and retainers at their service, as well as the inverse. If it's not terrible for guy!knights to swear loyalty to guy!rulers, then why is it bad when women are involved, assuming there's no stigma towards women fighters or rulers?

Their argument seemed to be that having a female in the subordinate role was automatically a male power fantasy regardless of context. Not necessarily for the characters, but for the audience/writer.

The assumptions behind that are actually rather misogynistic. It's assuming that women are fundamentally unable inhabit a power structure without being taken advantage of. Really no different than a reactionary saying women should stay out of office work "for their own good" because a boss above them will take advantage of his power.

EDIT: And to re-iterate a previous point, vassals are hardly powerless servants, but semi-independent agents in a mutually beneficial relationship where soldiers and taxes are provided in exchange for protection and reliable allies. Mistreating a vassal (especially but not exclusively in the way a male power fantasy implies) is a great way to get yourself murdered and replaced by your less dickish younger brother.

edited 22nd Nov '13 12:55:47 PM by KillerClowns

The lord-vassal relationship that person was talking about isn't sexist, it's classist, because the actual reason the male lord is "lording" it over the female vassal is not because of her sex/gender but because of their different social classes. Not to mention that as several tropers already mentioned, the lord-vassal relationship usually didn't work that way.

Actually, the situation your friend described would more likely fit if the woman was the vassal of a conquered nation, as opposed from the same nation from the lord. Kings would sometimes appoint vassal kings over conquered territories from among the nation's own nobility, who would have to pay tribute to the conquering king; The Bible has a few examples of this. In that situation, the vassal is truly under the power of the lord under the pain of death/invasion.

...Wouldn't that include non-fiction descriptions of gender-equal militaries?

Yeah, they seem to be saying that male audiences are irreadeamibly sexist, which is kind of sexist itself.