![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Gate To Women's Country
Aug. 31st, 2011 11:34 amSo, on the flight back from Worldcon, I read Sheri Tepper's wonderful novel The Gate To Women's Country. It's set in a post-apocalyptic Pacific Northwest, and describes a relatively low-tech world in which women are mostly in charge. There are male warriors, but they live in garrisons outside of the cities, and defend those cities from attack. Men have the choice, at age fifteen, to go through the Gate to Women's Country and live among the women or stay out as a warrior, not allowed in except for semi-annual carnivals. The beauty of Women's Country is that much of the real goings-on are hidden from view. The reader is then forced into the role of detective, figuring out "who's doing what."
What I wanted to discuss wasn't so much the book, but a concept that Tepper and other writers of her era, such as James Tiptree AKA Alice Sheldon and Joan Slonczewski use, the concept of "non-violent women." Basically, all of these writers say that a society of women or controlled by women will be inherently non-violent. I disagree, and I think this concept comes to us due to a misreading of history.
The first misreading of history is that of assuming women are non-violent by choice. The average woman has less upper-body strength and shorter reach then the average man. (Obviously, there are many individual exceptions.) In a pre-gunpowder society, these are critical disadvantages. Basically, pre-gunpowder, many women were impelled into choosing less-violent ways to settle disputes.
The second misreading occurs in that violent women tend not to get into the history books. For example, recent research suggest that armed Viking women went on raids. But this fact didn't make the history books. Other violent women, from documented cases of female pirates to female Civil War soldiers, are treated as historical footnotes.
In a women-controlled or especially women-only society, these disadvantages go away, allowing those women who are violent to be violent. In short, we have no reason to assume that a female-only society would be less violent than a mixed or male-only one. I would point out that Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, set in a world in which the humans are neither male nor female, "gets it right," at least in my view.
What I wanted to discuss wasn't so much the book, but a concept that Tepper and other writers of her era, such as James Tiptree AKA Alice Sheldon and Joan Slonczewski use, the concept of "non-violent women." Basically, all of these writers say that a society of women or controlled by women will be inherently non-violent. I disagree, and I think this concept comes to us due to a misreading of history.
The first misreading of history is that of assuming women are non-violent by choice. The average woman has less upper-body strength and shorter reach then the average man. (Obviously, there are many individual exceptions.) In a pre-gunpowder society, these are critical disadvantages. Basically, pre-gunpowder, many women were impelled into choosing less-violent ways to settle disputes.
The second misreading occurs in that violent women tend not to get into the history books. For example, recent research suggest that armed Viking women went on raids. But this fact didn't make the history books. Other violent women, from documented cases of female pirates to female Civil War soldiers, are treated as historical footnotes.
In a women-controlled or especially women-only society, these disadvantages go away, allowing those women who are violent to be violent. In short, we have no reason to assume that a female-only society would be less violent than a mixed or male-only one. I would point out that Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, set in a world in which the humans are neither male nor female, "gets it right," at least in my view.