Deconstructing Gender in Fiction

Hey guys,

Some of you asked me to open a new thread so here it is. Let's make this a space for all discussion of how to / whether to / when to deconstruct gender in our works of fiction. I don't know how much my status as OP matters, but if it does, I'd like to say that I interpret the words "deconstruction" and "gender" very broadly, so don't worry too much about going off topic.

So, to get started, I'd like to introduce my current novel project. The main story follows four characters trying to control "The Anomaly," which is anthropomorphized indeterminancy. There are also major plotlines about what happens when you make people choose between being powerful and being good, how much money different human lives are worth and the subjective nature of morality. Don't worry too much about those things, though.

For now, I'd like to introduce the two gender-based problems I'm looking to deconstruct.

a) Male sexuality. I've got four main characters with four differing views on this subject.

Petrus, an ambitious commoner, starts out believing that male sexuality and objectification are defiling for women. Puberty horrifies him, along with his natural desires. He responds by attempting to completely repress his sexuality. He fails and, for reasons outside the perview of this thread, becomes increasingly embittered and starts to view his sexuality as a weapon.

Aril, a prince of one of the kingdoms, starts out believing that male sexuality is wrong, as well. However, after his platonic girlfriend gets shipped away, one of his advisors points out that she'd still be around if he'd knocked her up. This person also notes that, basically, the more women he has sex with, the more women have access to stability and prosperity. Male sexuality, the advisor notes, is really only wrong when the man in question doesn't have enough money to lift the woman up. Aril gives up his dream of finding a true love in order to spread the wealth to as many poor women as possible. This really is a sacrifice, from his point of view.

The Acolyte, a teenaged girl I modelled on Savonarola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola), views male sexuality as a tool of the mighty to oppress the weak. Fitting in with the rest of her ascetic values, she feels any non-reproductive sexuality is a waste of energy that might otherwise go to helping the poor and stamping out corruption. One of her first actions in the novel is to turn a rich brothel into a fiery crater.

Shu Turul, a crippled noble from a steppe tribe, wants to view male sexuality as a triumph of "active, vigorous manhood" over "sickly, pathetic femininity." He is, in essence, a pretty typical steppe barbarian in this sense. However, this is complicated by the fact that he isn't actually interested in women. He overcomes this conflict by feminizing his male enemies and "conquering" them. Forcing submission from "bearded maidens" becomes something of a theme in his tribe.

b) The "proper" roles of men and women and the consequences of egalitarianism.

A major non-POV character is called Lady Shin. She and her husband, Admiral Shin, have "overcome sexism" in that they truly do treat men and women exactly the same. This turns out being pretty awful for a lot of women in the story. Let me explain why.

Lady Shin first meets her future husband in the aftermath of enemies burning her villiage, raping her and killing her mother. She rebuffs his "sexist pity" and demands the opportunity for revenge. Admiral Shin notes that she is tiny, not at all trained in the arts of war and physically soft from a lifetime living in relative comfort. He suggests that, should he send her out she would likely be raped again. Lady Shin again rebuffs his "sexist pity" and explains that if Admiral Shin can send men sent to die (which he does all the time), he can send a woman to be raped.

Admiral Shin thinks about this and spots a weakness in the traditional way his enemy wages war. The typical practice after winning a battle is to kill all the men, rape/kidnap/marry the women and sell the children into slavery. The reasoning being that men are dangerous and must be eliminated (also, they are easy to replace so it doesn't matter if they die), children are harmless and thus deserving of pity and women, like children, are also basically harmless.

Admiral Shin decides that Lady Shin is not harmless and can thus exploit this tradition. Lady Shin then spends several years as a plant in villages likely to fall. Three times over the four years, she is captured and raped but spared death. Since the enemy sees her as a harmless woman, she has a relatively easy time spying for Admiral Shin and, once, gets the opportunity to assassinate a kind but high ranking enemy officer on her way to exfiltration.

After the war tales of Lady Shin's actions get out and force a change in the culture of sexism that had previously defined the region. Filled with a new respect for the bravery and abilities of women, the warring nations decide that the best policy upon taking a village is to massacre the women along with the men. Lady Shin will agree, saying that anything less is to dishonor and infantilize women.

So, those are my deconstruction targets. What do you guys think and what sorts of deconstructions do you have planned?

edited 25th Jul '16 12:06:37 AM by garridob

Well, that's a REALLY detailed and thought-out concept, but what exactly are you planning for the story's message? Is it a commentary on the extremes of both patriarchy and feminism?

Because as a Filipino-American, "slaughtering women and children along with the men" was basically standard operation for the Spaniards' way of conquering the Philippines and replacing our religions with Catholicism. They did it to force pagans to convert to Catholicism on literal threat of death. Like, it's not SPECIAL that people slaughter entirely villages to the last (wo)man. It's horrifying and brutal, but it's not like nobody ever decided to kill everyone on X amount of land and seize control before.

I have a hard time thinking that "feminism means that instead of raping and enslaving women after their men are killed, just kill the women too" is going to be taken seriously by anyone besides a really sheltered (and possibly racist) white feminist. This concept feels like it's going a litttttle bit more into satire than most deconstructions do.

edited 30th Jul '16 9:42:09 PM by Sharysa

"I don't discriminate, I hate everyone!"

I don't know how others see it, but your exemples of "male sexuality" seen to work based on some big generalizations, like assuming All Men Are Perverts unless they are deliberately suppressing it.

And the prince exemple in specific feels like an attempt at prude-bashing to me. I mean, was his girlfriend forced to leave (by her family, maybe?), and making her pregnant would force them to marry, so they would stay together (if so, that should have been something she agreed with, but from what you wrote, it sounds like she suggested no such plan, making him in the right.)? Or has his girlfried left him because he didn't have enough sex with her (and from the way you wrote it, it does not even looks like she insisted), which feels superficial and petty, at least for me, and the story treats him as the only guilty part?

And why can't him use his money to give women better lifes without sleeping with them? Why is he forced to sleep around (something he sees as a sacrifice) instead of seeking other methods? (I mean, he is a goddamn prince. Surely he can find better ways to help the poor than leaving a bastard son in each town he visits.)

I mean, for me this sounds full of Unfortunate Implications, and the only message I can read from this particular exemple is: if you are a man and don't sleep around there is something seriously wrong with you.

ps: forgive me for the typos. I am writing from my smartphone.

edited 31st Jul '16 6:11:00 AM by EternaMemoria

Not sure if only a white feminist would believe it, but yeah, "women get killed in war because armies have discovered feminism" is pretty off the mark when it comes to "situations that have happened in warfare."

I also think that this situation comes across as pretty disparaging towards feminism, since it's about women getting killed because one evil woman wanted to be on equal standing with men, and you even specifically point out that this woman is physically weaker than the soldiers she wants to be equal with. This comes across as "women don't want real equality because chivalry and the idea that women are weak lead to them being treated way better than men in most cases, and the feminists don't represent the viewpoint of the majority of women." Not saying you actually endorse this, but to me all of the situations you've laid out here feel like you're trying harder to do something clever than you are to actually examine gender in society. It's like you spent more time coming up with unusual situations than you did actually researching and looking for Unfortunate Implications in those situations.

edited 31st Jul '16 8:58:22 AM by NothingUnusualHere

You'd be surprised at how out-of-touch a lot of White Feminists (not necessarily "feminists who are white") can be when it comes to history. I would not be surprised if a concept like this came from a white girl who treated "the slaughter of every single person including the women and children" as THE MOST UNHEARD OF THING EVER, AND WAR HAS CHANGED FOREVER. No it hasn't, honey—you just described colonialism.

As for deconstruction: Yeah, the near-absurdity of the plot (and I use "absurd" in a literary meaning, not as an insult) is why I thought this was heading more into satire than deconstruction. They're both a commentary on certain situations, but satire is "taking the situation to extremes, and frequently mocking the pitfalls of it." Deconstruction is "playing the situation straight, but bringing in realistic consequences."

edited 31st Jul '16 2:36:31 PM by Sharysa

Not disagreeing about White Feminists here, what I was getting as was that I see that kind of thing among MRAs/the Manosphere as well. The implications of the passage were what made me think more of MRAs than feminists, especially with how Lady Shin is kind of anachronistically throwing around "infantalizing" like she's supposed to be making fun of feminists who use the word.

edited 31st Jul '16 3:48:28 PM by NothingUnusualHere

Sharysa,

It's my sincere hope readers never do figure out my personal opinion. My goal is to provide solid, plausible arguments for and realistic consequences for ideas you are unlikely to have considered. Lady Shin is my idea of gender equality. She's a hero in universe and I respect the person she's based on (Fu Hao) immensely. However, her actions do have consequences and I suspect many people, including feminists, will find equality disturbing. Disturbing enough to change their stated goal of equality? I kind of hope not, frankly.

As for the colonial experience, this is kind of off topic, but it's my observation that when a very weak group with natural resources comes into contact with a strong group, that weak group is doomed. I actually can't think of any exceptions to this rule. The book is a little bit different in that all the cultural groups are advanced enough to be economically useful to the conquering nation.

Hellomoto,

Not really hatred, more respect. You can only really pity people you consider beneath yourself. Lady Shin doesn't like it when people pity women.

Eterna Memoria,

I'm not sure I understand. All three male POV characters are trying very hard to suppress their natural sexual desires. The commoner and the prince because they don't want to pollute women and the barbarian because he's trying to live up to an ideal of masculinity he can never meet. None of them are really perverts, although two of them will end up that way as a result of their attempts at repression.

The Prince isn't prude bashing, unless you consider the Prince a prude. It's interesting you assumed the lady was the one saying no to sex. It's quite the opposite. She wanted to knock boots but the prince, infantalizing her, decided he should step in a protect her honor.

As for giving money - that's simple. A charitable bond is one time and easily severed by others in the royal family. A bastard is much harder to get rid of or ignore, especially when there are dozens of bastards. It has worked this way for most cultures throughout history in the sense that an ambitious woman would much, much rather have the king/prince's bastard than his charity. Also, in what sense is "leaving a bastard in every town" bad for the town or the woman?

The reason I wrote it this way is that male sexuality is only wrong if you're poor. If a poor man makes a woman pregnant, he is tying her to a life of misery and should thus either voluntarily embrace celibacy or be forced into involuntary celibacy by society. If a rich man makes a woman pregnant, he's done her a favor. I don't actually believe this is an ideal, but it is how male sexuality works in my experience, in my culture.

Nothing Unusual Here,

I agree it's not a consequence of feminism although I've never found an instance of a society actually treating men and women as equals. This book is a type of experiment to that end.

Also, Lady Shin isn't making fun of anybody. Baby's get pity. Baby's get mercy. Adults don't and Lady Shin is sincere in her desire to be treated as an adult. It's interesting you read her as a villain. I certainly don't.

It's hard to get a feel for a character or story based upon just one small description, and I mainly read your character as villainous because the impression I got from that description and the others in your post was that you condemned her actions and viewpoint. Also, in the post it wasn't quite clear whether Admiral Shin was part of the army raping and killing everyone in the village, but I ended up leaning towards him being a part of it which made her marriage to him seem like it was supposed to come across as a villainous act.

The problem is not necessarily your message of "do you REALLY want equality???" It's how you're not quite getting that message across due to your overblown plot of warfare and slaughter.

Of COURSE we're going to think this message of "equality" is reprehensible, but it's not because we're thinking "OMG, WE SHOULD DITCH FEMINISM AND GO BACK TO CHIVALRY AND COURTLY ROMANCE!"

It's because Lady Shin, who you consider a hero, is openly advocating that the massacre of civilians is okay because if you slaughter adult men, you should slaughter adult women, too.

We're not okay with "the massacre of civilians" idea because killing innocent people is wrong, and a lot of people have a knee-jerk aversion to that idea.

Should I also point out that colonialism didn't completely work in a lot of places? I mean, people found a LOT of loopholes in the "Convert or die" ultimatum. A lot of times, all people did to keep their customs was change some gods' names and refer to them as saints/heroes instead of gods.

Maybe I didn't understand you right, but you must admit your descriptions didn't give much to work with.

I didn't assume as a certainty the prince's girlfriend refused sex, it is just that I have no idea what made them part ways, and if she left by choice or by force, so I think making her pregnant as a way to keep her close is short-sighted and if she wasn't part of the plan, a big disrespect towards her.

And in any case, making a woman pregnant is not something one should do blindly, as if it was an all-solving tool, so it feels hard to see the Prince as wrong in his original course of actions, even if his reasons were less rational.

And why would other nobles willingly go their way to disrupt the prince's attempts to help people? And why can't he simply find small children that look a little like him and (with the consent of their mothers) spread the lie that they are his bastard children, if leaving a bastard in each village is the only way to help?

I mean, it is not like he likes the idea of sleeping around, and anyway even if he has a hundred bastards it won't change the living conditions for most of the poor. If he really wanted to change things for the better he should instead focus on politics.

EDIT: And on the matter of Lady Shin, I find your example forced. After all, not all ancient armies killed the men, raped the women and enslaved the children. Some killed the men, raped the women and then killed them and the children.

This is without going into the survival rates of the women who weren't killed by the invaders, which were very low if the defending side used "scorched earth" tactics so there would be nothing for the invaders to loot.

While the consequences of Lady Shin's actions were less than ideal, they weren't as bad as you portray them as, and you ignore the possibility of women being trained to fight as another result of her actions, and thus not being as helpless.

Women are not really that much disadvantaged in comparison to men when it comes to melee combat. Bladed weapons make the strenght more important for carrying gear than to the fighting itself, as hitting a weak spot in enemy armor is much easier than punching through it, and less likely to break your own weapon. The reach advantage can also be mitigated by longer weapons like spears. While at first people will think a woman fighting is ridiculous, Lady Shin's actions could change that opinion.

EDIT2: BTW, why didn't Lady Shin advocate that women should be allowed to fight besides the men, if they are going to die like them in case of defeat anyway? It looks like she can't decide if she wants equality or just being seem as a hero while other women suffer.

edited 1st Aug '16 4:55:22 AM by EternaMemoria

Does the prince only feel generous towards ambitious women, then? To be honest, the motivation of this prince character seems very contrived. Can he really not think of a simpler or more effective way to promote stability and prosperity?

I'm reminded of Greek mythology. Zeus's mistresses and offspring often don't do very well. They tend to become targets.

Not only that, but if the prince himself dislikes the idea and there are alternatives, why should he make a senseless sacrifice?

Nothing Unusual Here,

Nope, no condemnation here. All the important characters, including the steppe barbarian, are going to have consistent and persuasive schema behind their actions if I meet my goals. In my experience, condemnation is a very strong indication you don't understand what the person you are condemning was thinking/feeling/facing. Like I said to Sharysa, I sincerely hope you never figure out what my real opinion on the matter is. At least, I hope you can't figure it out by reading the book. If you ask me, of course, I'd tell you.

Oh yeah, sorry for the confusion. Lady Shin gets raped and pillaged by Shu Turul's (the barbarian pov character) dad. Admiral Shin and Lady Shin finally succeed in destroying Shu Turul's culture and cities largely because of how they exploit gender roles. In the parts of their relationship I've written so far, these two enjoy a very solid marriage with a vast quantity of mutual respect.

Sharysa,

I don't want you to think "OMG we should ditch feminism and go back to 13th century courtly love." I do want you to think "wow, I'd never considered that before. I'm going to sit by myself for a while now and come up with a more nuanced view of the world." So long as the view truly is more nuanced, I am satisfied.

What you conclude regarding gender, provided you are earnestly and clearly thinking, is an individual triumph of will and intellect that I would not dream of steering or manipulating. Double down on second wave feminism? Cool, so long as you do it for good reasons. Decide the 50's were heaven on earth? Also cool, so long as your process is good. Decide the steppe barbarians had it all figured out? Fascinating. I'd love to hear why you think so.

As for massacring civillians, have you heard of the Samnite wars? The antagonists were the Romans of the high republic and the Samnite tribesmen of Northern Italy. Early in the war the Samnite commander, one Gaius Pontius, set a frankly brillaint trap that resulted in the taking of several legions without even fighting. (This is the "Battle" of the Caudine Forks, if you're curious.)

With the entire Roman force at his mercy, Gaius Pontius wrote a letter to his father asking for advice. Basically, "hey Dad, what should I do with these legions?" The father's first letter said "take their weapons but let them go with no other conditions." Pontius thought this strange and so sent a second letter to his father asking the same question, "Hey, that last letter was really wierd and I'm not going to listen to it. What should I really do, Dad?" This time the father's reply said "if you won't let them go, kill them all."

Gaius Pontius thought this overly harsh and so decided on a middle ground, "passing under the yoke." https://kr.pinterest.com/pin/70791025367556069/ As humiliating as that picture looks, it's far worse in the cultural context. Think of the "shame, shame" scene in Game of Thrones.

When Gaius Pontius returned to Samnium and saw his father, he asked for clarification. His father said "if you let them go with their honor intact, we have an opportunity for friendship. If you kill them all, you've crippled them and bought us a decade of safety. By humiliating them, you've made friendship impossible and done nothing to stop them from retalliating." I'm betting you can guess how the Samnite war ended for the Samnites.

The reason I bring this up is because one of the first duties of any military commander is to avoid revenge. You can do that two ways, by being really nice so people don't want to retalliate or by killing everybody who could possibly retaliate. Historically, the most effective empires have tended to do a little of both. Ghengis Khan, for example, had this down to a T. If you played nicely with the other children, the Mongol domination was incredibly easy and often brought better governance, economic opportunity and a technological boom. If you didn't play nice, all the males over about four and a half feet tall were taken outside the city and decapitated. The women "mostly" survived to be raped and sold into slavery. The Mongols were meticulous about staying away from "passing under the yoke" type scenarios - seriously, they were the first empire to outlaw torture and they were incredibly nice about your temples and monuments - and they NEVER gave the people they conquered an opportunity for revenge.

This still applies in the modern age, though in slightly modified form. Destroying the culture to such an extent it's no longer a threat has largely replaced simply killing all the men, but you still cannot let people take revenge if you want to win. De-Nazification, that golden standard of cultural annihilation, is a great example of so thoroughly erasing your enemy that he can never hurt you again. Abu Ghraib, that shit storm so emblematic of the Iraq fuster cluck, was a perfect example of humiliating your enemy and then leaving him in a position to relataliate later. Avoiding revenge left us with a peaceful Europe and a powerhouse trading partner. Half measures left us with a decade long ulcer and massive refugee crisis.

Lady and Admiral Shin are doing the same thing. If they think they can make an enemy village into their friend, they do. If they think the enemy is too implacable or too dangerous, everybody with the ability to retalliate dies. If they have enough time and resources they, like the Romans used to do when dealing with really implacable enemies, simply get sell everyone into slavery so that the dangerous culture can die off. It's basically an old timey version of De-Nazification.

The Shins aren't into needless butchery, but they do prioritize ending the war over protecting civillians. The only innovation in this formula is Lady Shin's belief that women have enough agency to qualify for "dangerous" status and Admiral Shin's willingness to use women as weapons.

Eterna Memoria,

Sorry for the confusion. I'm trying to walk a fine line between being clear and writing something so long nobody will read it. I hope you understand.

The Prince, like most princes in history, is a valuable political chip. He can't marry his sweetheart because she's not a worthwhile political alliance. Knocking up the girl you're in love with so she can stick around as your mistress/concubine while marrying somebody else for political reasons was incredibly common in most of history.

As for nobles, the point of being a noble is that you get power just by being born. How big of a threat to your position would it be if the king started favoring people for non-birth reasons like "being nice" or "having ability?" My answer to that question looks like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Gwang-jo

Also, in an aristocratic society, there really isn't any good way to move up the ranks that doesn't involve having a baby with somebody already in the nobility. Bloodlines > ability. Anyway, the Prince recognizes this and thinks it's unfair. He's trying to undermine the nobility's stranglehold on power by swelling the ranks of "noble blood" as much as possible.

It's kind of an aside, but the Petrus (ambitious commoner) character I mentioned above is going to run face-first into this problem. He can be good or he can have enough power to change things, but he can't do both.

As for why I don't have the women swinging swords - I'm completely willing to have my mind changed on this matter - in my experience, women in the old timey infantry would be a waste. I've obviously never participated in a phalanx charge, but I was a wrestler in highschool. Wrestling is one of the few highschool sports that is sometimes coed.

Watching the female wrestlers was absolutely cringeworthy. I never once saw a female wrestler beat a male wrestler. I never even saw a competitive coed competition. What I did see immediately devolved into a guy either mercilessly beating the crap out of a girl or the even more awkward spectacle of the guy trying not to hurt the girl while doing just enough to win.

(The unwanted and impossible-to-hide-in-a-singlet boners didn't do much to help with the awkwardness either. There's nothing like getting a visible stiffy in front of your girlfriend and several hundred other people while trying to not beat up a massively outclassed girl to make you look cool.)

Anyway, that's what comes to mind when I imagine women in the front line of a phalanx. A rifle is an equalizer, but I can't imagine a spear would be and I'm positive a sheild wouldn't be.

Editerguy,

Can you? Remember, aristocratic society where bloodlines trump ability. He's not king yet and can't change the rules.

I'll bet about 20% of the kings/queens you can name were royal bastards.

edited 1st Aug '16 6:38:29 AM by garridob

Why wouldn't a spear be a (partial) equalizer? You realize that attacking someone with a long bladed stick is very different than doing the same with your body, right?

I mean, if the blade is reasonably sharp it won't take monumental strenght to cause massive bleeding, and against most types of armor it is smarter to aim for a weak spot than to punch throught it, if the later is even possible, as a stuck or broken spear means certain death.

And on unnarmed fighting, taller people have a reach advantage that is hard to overcome, but with longer thrusting weapons it becomes almost meaningless compared to simply hitting your foe first. The only big disadvantage remaining is that women are going to get tired faster from carrying the same weight in gear, which is a greater issue to invaders than to defenders even if it applies to both.

Of course, that is of little comfort to the women her nation is going to kill, unless the increased stakes make their own "Lady Shin" arise.

On the Prince, the son being a bastard still won't give that much social mobility to the mother herself, and he can't exactly knock up a statistically significant fraction of the kingdom, can he? He won't change the system with carity, but why would he be able to change it with promiscuity? There were many kings throught history woth lots of bastards, and guess what, it didn't do much to change the fact that nobles are nobles and commoners are commoners.

And if those bastards are all potential heirs according to the laws of his kingdom with enough chances to be of any significance (which is unlikely if the kingdom is stable), that is more reason for him to not have many of them, as if he can't keep close watch on them he is granting rival factions chances to reach the throne and increasing instability.

Plus, you wrote he isn't king yet, implying he is the most likely heir. From his personality, it sounds like he would much rather prepare for that day in order to bring reforms without dying like your Jo Gwang-jo example than going on a strange quest to have as many bastards as possible.

EDIT: and why couldn't he make his girlfriend a concubine without making her pregnant?

edited 1st Aug '16 7:04:31 AM by EternaMemoria

If I remember correctly, most mass spear tactics involve shield walls and a lot of pushing. I think I read somewhere that asphixiating was a more common way to die than getting stabbed in the front lines. Now granted, formation and discipline can cover up for size and strength against an undisciplined foe, but I can't imagine a line of women holding up against a line of disciplined men. And if those female wrestlers are any indication, women are on average not just smaller and weaker, but slower as well. There's a reason men and women don't usually compete in contact sports.

Outside the context of the story and back in real life. The reason you still wouldn't send women out into the shield walls even if they were physically as strong as men is that men are disposable. Women have uteruses and uteruses are a scarce resource.

As for the social mobility. In my reading of Roman history, both the Republican golden age (roughly the period before the Second Punic War) and the Imperial Golden Age (the Antonines) coincided with the nobility and commoners intermarrying A LOT. The Han Dynasty was also founded by a lot of Chinese princesses getting hitched to a lot of barbarians. The Golden Age of Sejong (in Korea's early Joseon Dynasty) was also defined by numerous commoners making their ways into the channels of official power and the breakdown of caste divisions.

Ah, your point on rival factions is an excellent one. If the Prince were thinking of his power base and the stability of his kingdom, he would stop caring about the fates of poor women and restrict his bastard-siring to the nobility or just wait for his political marriage. However, the Prince is a nice guy first and a politician 87th. This IS going to be a problem as he gets older.

It's true he can't change the world through being promiscuous, but he can positively impact the lives of the people he comes in contact with while he waits. My question would be, remembering he's a crappy politician and a nice guy, why wouldn't he?

Btw, I should mention that one of the Prince's advisors, and the woman who suggested the bastard siring course of action, is herself bastard grandaughter of a commoner and duke.

Also, the Prince's girlfriend got sent away because the Prince's father was worried they'd get married. As such, he banished the girl so he could keep the prince as an alliance bargaining chip. That would have been a lot harder to do if the girlfriend had been pregnant.

Edit: Jo Gwang-jo's pretty cool, isn't he?

edited 1st Aug '16 7:43:27 AM by garridob

Intermarrying is a completelly different beast from fathering bastards left and right. If he wants to help individuals instead of changing the system (because he is an inept politician?), charity would also help with much less embarassement on his part. And while I didn't deny that often bastards had (marginally) better social mobility, I questioned if it would really help the mother.

On female fighters, it is true that phalanx tactics would render them suboptimal, but remember that women are weaker on average, which means most ancient armies would have their share of men who weren't much stronger than trained women (and in any case, the strenght and skill of each group of soldiers is not the only factor in combat), and a nation can't field only elites (having women soldiers can mean having more soldiers, generally an advantage). And the idea that Men Are the Expendable Gender is somewhat stupid when defeat means extermination of your people, either in the form of literal genocide or "merely" destruction of your cultural identity.

EDIT: sorry for the typos. Writing from my smartphone.

edited 1st Aug '16 4:49:17 PM by EternaMemoria

You're not listening to me.

The problem is that your message isn't nuanced because you aren't getting the message across in the first place. You say it's a deconstruction, but nobody else thinks it's a deconstruction. Your plot and characters might have a chain of progression, but they don't feel like an actual story—just a collection of outlandish situations and people wandering around in the same general area.

edited 1st Aug '16 5:27:18 PM by Sharysa

Sharysa,

Why do you think it's disjointed? I'd think that would be pretty hard to judge without actually seeing the manuscript.

Eterna Memoria,

I'm curious about two things in your reply. Do you feel like a prince having lots of sex with commoners is harmful? If so, why?

Also, I would think that it's better to go through cultural annihilation, like what the Nazis experienced after WW 2, than it is to go through physical annihilation. If you agree, it seems that the "men are the expendable gender" trope would apply, or am I missing something?

Can I think of a simpler or more effective way to promote stability and prosperity?

Does spreading around bastard children born to ambitious women promote stability and prosperity? It seems to me that that would create an incentive for more ruthless politics; the killing of various prospective heirs and 'unsuitable' women, similar to the Henry VIII mess but worse.

But in answer to your question, if he really does have so much money, what's wrong with building stuff? Build a well for a village that can't get water and is too poor to build one themselves, build sturdy roads and protect them from brigands if you can, that kind of thing.

Or he could do that fairy tale thing - travel far and wide, mix with the common people and give away cash to those who deserve it... just without shagging them first.

I thought you said he hates doing it?

It would make more sense to me if he loved being promiscuous and this was just his moralistic self-justification.

edit

I guess I'm agreeing with Eterna here: why should he make a senseless sacrifice?

edited 2nd Aug '16 4:48:13 AM by editerguy

The problem with the prince doing that is twofold:

The first downside is that if his offspring are potential heirs, they are potential targets, and if there is one in every town he can't assure their loyalty (not that it matters to him, being such an incompetent politician) or security (which he should care a lot about, being a nice guy).

The second is that you wrote that he sees it as a sacrifice, so why should he do it when there are better methods? Like the ones exposed by the poster above? Did you consider that there is nothing wrong with a man not wanting to impregnate every woman he comes across?

And on cultural extermination, I agree that most people would prefer it to genocide. But from what you wrote about the army killing the non-combatants too because of Lady Shin's actions, it looks like there is a significant threat of the later, which goes back to my argument.

edited 2nd Aug '16 6:12:49 AM by EternaMemoria

He sees it as a sacrifice in the sense he'd rather have a one and only but he's never going to get a one and only because he's needed for a political marriage. Being promiscuous and adding lots of new people to the nobility is an alternative to a one and only because there can never be a one and only, unless he lucks out and clicks with a necessary ally's daughter. But no, I'm not going to make it painful for him. It's plan b, it's downgrading from surf and turf to a pasta dinner.

Also, in history, most of the royal bastard mommies have been ambitious women. However, this kind of gets into another big theme of the book and that's pity. The Prince is full of pity for the poor. When he spends the night with a commoner, it's the most destitute woman he can find.

As for security, would you rather be a peasant, plain and simple, or a royal bastard in a kind of precarious situation? I'm honestly curious.

Once again, he doesn't have any power YET. He doesn't have the authority to command wells dug and he's not going to get it because of the nature of nobility. Nobles see merit and popularity as a threat. Going around building wells in villages is necessarily stealing thunder from local nobility and making them look bad by comparison. When nobles see your ability and popularity as a threat, you end up drinking poison on your back porch like Jo Gwang-jo did. This all changes when/if the Prince becomes a king, obviously.

Let me put this in a modern context. Let's say Prince Harry knocked up your mom and gave you a younger sibling. Does your life get worse?

Eterna,

Thank you for that point. It's excellent. If Lady Shin's egalitarianism spreads the enemy cultures no longer have a reason to protect their women folk. You absolutely could see armies of women getting mowed down in the field because they'll get mowed down in town anyway. I'm officially using this.

edited 2nd Aug '16 6:40:22 AM by garridob

I would rather be a commoner living in good conditions than a bastard if being a bastard meant I had a reasonable chance at reaching the throne. If the nation is stable enough, the power will stay with the nobles and being a bastard would probably be useful, but if I am a potential heir, it probably means the kingdom is not that stable to begin with and I become a priority target.

Plus, is this about helping the poor or giving birth to bastards because they have more social mobility? Those are different things, and just having a lot of illegitimate children of nobles running around is not going to break down the caste system. Not when nobles can easily play their "pure" blood. When there is one royal bastard per village, bastards would be little different from commoners in the eyes of the nobility, unless someone needs a potential heir to turn into a puppet.

EDIT: and if he would rather have "one and only", it would feel much more in character for him to have a small number of concubines he payed close attention to, and used normal displays of charity to help poor people without having to restrict himself based on who would be a fitting lover. While he may lack the authority to build wells he can give money to villages that need it, and if nobles get nosy he can invent an excuse of having a lover there he wishes to be discreet about.

edited 2nd Aug '16 7:41:10 AM by EternaMemoria

"Plus, is this about helping the poor or giving birth to bastards because they have more social mobility? Those are different things."

Are they?

According to most of the history I've been reading, in both the Cino-sphere and the Roman world, being a royal bastard was a very big deal, btw. Bastard of the blood > pure bred "normal" aristocrat in most situations I've been reading about.

edited 2nd Aug '16 8:04:24 AM by garridob

I feel it's disjointed because while the characters/plot generally involves some kind of sex and the status of women, they don't really pull together into a coherent message. Everyone's just wandering around in their own self-contained stories, unless you have Lady Shin work for the prince as a novelty of "A WOMAN CAN FIGHT, OMG."

And the message that you've constantly stated that you want to send—wanting to make us think about the ramifications of equality/feminism—is NOT GETTING ACROSS for me because we have what seems to be a budding Villain Protagonist in the form of Lady Shin. Yes, she got raped, and yes, she becomes an Ultimate Warrior To Match A Man(TM), but you lost me immediately when she advocated for the slaughter of innocent civilians because if you slaughter adult men, you should slaughter adult women as well to make things "fair."

I would have been able to run with this premise if it was satire/black-comedy or if she was played as a Tragic Villain, but as you have her right now, with everyone seeming to AGREE with her? She sounds like she's gone off the deep end, and that's giving SERIOUS Unfortunate Implications of "a rape-victim goes berserk and slaughters everyone indiscriminately out of hate/anger."