Inequality in romance (relationships, not genre)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
Only an issue if inheritance is patrilineal. There's an obvious alternative that a few cultures figured out, but they do seem to be the exception to the rule.

No, still an issue whether it is patrilineal or not - when the husband dies, he can decide who inherits his estate, or divide it how he wants. He could give it all to his wife, he could divide it equally between all his living dependents, or he could leave it all to his oldest or even favourite child.

But economic issues are not only confined to the question of inheritance. There's also the cost of raising the bastard in the first place :D
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I was thinking more of societies where everything belongs to and passes through the female lines, so the husband is essentially living with his wife's family and has no say over the disposition of her property when she dies (their daughters, or in the absence of daughters, her sisters would), or men may even just stay living in their mother houses all their lives and develop a strong bond to their sisters' children.

It seems so much more logical than all that worrying about whether or not the kids of one's female lover/wife are yours biologically and spending so much energy controlling women's sexuality.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
I was thinking more of societies where everything belongs to and passes through the female lines, so the husband is essentially living with his wife's family and has no say over the disposition of her property when she dies (their daughters, or in the absence of daughters, her sisters would), or men may even just stay living in their mother houses all their lives and develop a strong bond to their sisters' children.

It seems so much more logical than all that worrying about whether or not the kids of one's female lover/wife are yours biologically and spending so much energy controlling women's sexuality.

I fail to see how that solves anything - it's still not equality, it's just putting the boot on the other foot. A female dominated society like that makes me just as mad as a male dominated one.

In the society I described, a man can leave his property to a woman. She can then dispose of it how SHE pleases. That seems more like equality than the scenario above.
 

StephanieZie

Trust me, I'm a doctor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
688
Reaction score
87
Location
Mostly in my own head
I'm so drawn to and fascinated by romantic power imbalance that I wrote a novel about it. My MC has the edge on his LI in most areas that count in the world: age, socioeconomic status, life experience, emotional maturity, etc., and he takes advantage of all of this. But the LI loves him, even though that love is wrapped up in fiscal and emotional dependence. And the MC loves the LI, and he only ever tries to do what's best for him, albeit in an oftentimes paternalistic way. Does this justify the relationship? I don't know.

But I think abusive and unequal relationships are more complex than they're popularly portrayed. In romance and sex, once a subject is culturally "taboo", it tends to get two separate artistic treatments. On the one hand, it's almost universally denounced and villainized by anyone attempting to reach a wide audience. On the other end of the spectrum, it enters the world of fetishism. Neither treatment really does the complexity of these issues justice, IMO.
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
I find it a fascinating topic, especially in a historical context (I write historical, so yeah, I guess I would be interested in that!).

Jane Eyre happens to be my favorite novel. It's intriguing that Jane fights for her right to be independent of Mr. Rochester even at the cost of being with him, which she really desires. Though they understand each other and connect emotionally, the relationship is very uneven. It takes the almost-bigamy to make her realize just how uneven. Ultimately, he has to be humbled (physically) for the relationship to work, because in that society at that time and with his personality, there would have otherwise always been a steep inequality between them. (You can argue that there is no happy ending since Mr. Rochester is, after all, still the same man who was willing to commit bigamy for Jane's sake.)

I struggled with giving my Victorian women agency. Very few times and places were quite so blithely repressive of women. It was all so cozy and comfortable and so stifling. Especially in the work I'm editing now, I have to work against that. The two female leads--a slave and an actress--have very, very uneven relationships with the men who father their children. It's a difficult lesson for them to learn: that the men can do almost anything they want. That's part of their story arc. At least they each get their revenge.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
I struggled with giving my Victorian women agency. Very few times and places were quite so blithely repressive of women. It was all so cozy and comfortable and so stifling. Especially in the work I'm editing now, I have to work against that. The two female leads--a slave and an actress--have very, very uneven relationships with the men who father their children.

That threw me for a moment, because in the UK the ownership of slaves is pre-Victorian (slavery was abolished here in 1833). I have a hard time associating the word 'Victorian' with North America at all though, really, as she was never your queen ;)

Anyway, yes, I was also struggling for a way to let my slave girl play a more significant role in the story, considering her limited direct influence on the masculine sphere, which is what the main plot centres on. Still working on getting her out of the harem and into harm's way :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
That threw me for a moment, because in the UK the ownership of slaves is pre-Victorian (slavery was abolished here in 1833). I have a hard time associating the word 'Victorian' with North America at all though, really, as she was never your queen ;)

True, but it's still extremely common for American to refer to the era as Victorian. And, really, when I think of slavery, it's usually a Victorian world I think of, not a Georgian one (i.e., a 19th century world instead of an 18th century one). That's probably because of the humongous, hulking elephant in the room called the Civil War, which tends to linger over any discussion of slavery. It seems like all trails lead downhill to 1861-1865. So the image lingers of slavery as it was then.

Anyway, yes, I was also struggling for a way to let my slave girl play a more significant role in the story, considering her limited direct influence on the masculine sphere, which is what the main plot centres on. Still working on getting her out of the harem and into harm's way :)

In my WIP: For both the slave woman and the woman who's used and pushed aside, their first weapon is stony silence. Then they find their own ways to circumvent the power structure: one of them, uh, checks out entirely, and the other decides to beat the men at their own game.

I think in situations where your character doesn't have much power, you have to go deeper inward. They can't effect the world around them very much, but they're still leading an internal life. When you go internal, you can see what the lack of power is doing to them. Otherwise, it might not show on the outside. It is really hard to make that gripping, though.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
I think in situations where your character doesn't have much power, you have to go deeper inward. They can't effect the world around them very much, but they're still leading an internal life. When you go internal, you can see what the lack of power is doing to them. Otherwise, it might not show on the outside. It is really hard to make that gripping, though.

Yeah, especially when editors say 'give her more to do in the plot!' So... looking inward isn't really an option. Finding a way to MAKE them impact the world around them without committing any cultural anachronisms is pretty hard, but being a slave does give her the ability to change households, and have access to places that a man of high social status can't ;)
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I fail to see how that solves anything - it's still not equality, it's just putting the boot on the other foot. A female dominated society like that makes me just as mad as a male dominated one.

In the society I described, a man can leave his property to a woman. She can then dispose of it how SHE pleases. That seems more like equality than the scenario above.

Oh, not saying it solves everything. Not at all. Inequality is inequality. But given that the excesses of patriarchy are often explained, even excused, by the "need" for men to know that the woman/women he supports are bearing his children, it just seems logical that other socioeconomic systems might evolve that bypass this issue in varying ways.

And in fact they have, in other animals, and in some human societies too. Though humans seem to default to patrilineal and patriarchal societies a lot of the time.

My point, though, wasn't to suggest a utopian alternative (I don't think one would exist in any case). Just to point out that the need to control women sexually more than men is no more "logical" than many other alternatives.

Obviously, you have to write things the way they were historically in Egypt, since that's the setting of your story. And yes, it was a better place to be a woman than many other ancient societies (Athens, for instance). But people are often unaware that other systems have existed, and still do in a few places.

And while far from perfect, a matrilineal inheritance system does have the advantage, at least, of allowing both genders equal levels of sexual freedom. There is, in essence, no such thing as a bastard, since a child gets its status through its mother's line, and maternity is far less likely to be uncertain. This doesn't mean there's no sexual jealousy or that couples would never fight over infidelity. Just that a man's sexual jealousy would carry no more weight socially than a woman's.

The thing is, in romance, regardless of the power structure of the relationship, 100% across the board equality in all matters is probably rare. I don't think of my husband as a domineering sort. We have a very equal relationship overall (possibly because neither of us is very good at leading or following). But when I'm watching TV with him and he starts changing the channels around so he's watching two or three shows at once (which drives me nuts), I get up and leave rather than grabbing the remote and telling him to cut it out. I don't do this because he's the man and it's his right to control the remote. I do it because my interest in TV is already so slight that it's just not worth it to me. I get up and go back to the computer, or go back to my book or whatever.

I think a lot of the choices couples make are based on what each person thinks is most important to them. Of course, one's perceived social role may drive these interests too, but that's another story.
 
Last edited:

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
297
It helps if it goes both ways somehow. Otherwise, what is the "better" in it for? Sex? Pure generosity? For example: Dirty Dancing: teacher / student. Johnny is the official teacher. Baby learns to dance. But Johnny learns to stand up for what's right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.