Setting Idea: Superpowers as "Woman's Work"

[roseembolism]

Recently on his livejournal, James Nicoll posited an interesting idea:

Quote:

In the Eyes of Amber review, I said (of a setting where only women could be starship crew) Given past history I wouldn't expect men to be affronted by an inability to be a spacer. I'd expect them to dismiss the entire profession as beneath them, in as much as it's dominated by women

So, what I'm wondering is, what if we looked at superpowers in terms of "woman's work"? Consider how "women's" jobs such as weaving or knitting or childcare or housekeeping have been largely regarded by male dominated society ( consider how recently it was that archaeologists actually started looking for evidence of things such as weaving). Now, how would a power, say flight, or FTL travel, or whatever be defined, if it was possessed only by women? James Nicoll's argument is that rather than changing the way women are regarded, the way the power would be regarded would conform to patriarchal society; it would be considered "unimportant woman's work", and the usage of it would be limited and confined. You could have women using the power, but the control over it would not be given to them.

So imagine that women started developing super powers oh, a couple hundred years ago, say back in the 18th century. We'll assume that they aren't totally overpowering Justice League level powers, but effective nonetheless.  My thought is that women could use those powers, sure, possibly even be paid to use them, but only in the societal context of male dominance. Use of those would be denigrated, dismissed, and controlled  through use of social opprobrium, the same way traditional work and "unfeminine" activities were.  Possibly the mere possession of those powers would be regarded as garish, unfeminine, and even immoral. Necessary of course, like the need for prostitutes for sailors, and a source for similarly titillating stories.  A stereotype of the perfect wife and mother who either has no powers or gives them up for domesticity would be promoted, and a woman who freely used her powers would be regarded as freakish as a female weightlifter or sharpshooter (yes, you'll notice that this does leave a degree of flexibility for women to use powers, either privately or publicly; historically there's been a gap between what women are told they should do, and what they actually do)

And then we move along, and say, somewhere in the 1930s or 40s, men start developing those powers. How would that change things? Well, men's powers would likely be seen as quantitatively different; stronger, and purer, and a distillate of men's nature. Men would be encouraged to use their powers and push their strength. Unlike women's powers, men's powers would be seen as IMPORTANT.

Now move the timeline up to the 1970s, with NOW, Gloria Steinham, and "I'm Cheryl: fly me".

Have fun.

Comments

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

Actually, we do have a historical model for this: witchcraft. Whether or not you believe in magic in the real world, women (usually women) were perceived as having powers that men couldn't usually understand, and were reviled for it-- it was called unnatural and against God. Those few men who also were rumored to have the powers were also considered ungodly, although interestingly I never heard of them being called womanly. I think superpowers would also constitute an offense against the Church if they started up in the 1800s... you could even postulate a world in which superpowers basically WERE the "witchcraft" that these people were accused of.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting tack on the matter, one I really should have put more thought into. Of course one reason I was positing the 1700s is that time's both past the age of the witch trials, is into the "age of reason", and is pre-Victorian. So it's easier to posit less of an "Agent of Satan", and more of a "publicly dismiss, privately utilize" response. I also can't help but think that if the powers had obvious utility in warcraft, that would tend to result in more allowance for their use, even in spite of church pressure.

Also, I can't help but recall that one type of "magical" practitioners had limited tolerance: all the alchemists and such that promised gold or longevity. OF course I speculate that the preponderance of male alchemists not only fit in with the nobilities greed, but with the notion of the male intellect.

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

Ah, but also remember that alchemy was a stepping-stone to scientific process. Even Sir Isaac Newton was rumored to be involved in, or have interest in, alchemy, before we knew enough to always distinguish which branches of science were and weren't plausible.

But yes, there IS a difference in treatment between the hermetic, Seal of Solomon, I-can-bind-demons-and-make-them-talk version of magic and the "she's a witch so clearly she has to SLEEP with demons" version of magic. Whether that's more about "learned" Judaic/pseudo-Judaic respect vs "hedge"/"low" magic, or more about the inherently perceived worth of men/money vs women/childbirth pursuits, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

I'm honestly not sure (but am willing to speculate) on the fact that alchemy and hermetic magic were more tolerated then hedge magic. I'm inclined to think that Alchemy was more male oriented, and was oriented toward the nobility.

I also have to wonder how much of the "stepping stone to science" could have also come from hedge magicians and herbalists...if their knowledge hadn't been discounted. Not that I'm going to get into the "male science vs. female science" nonsense, but I'm sure there was a lot of knowledge that was lost through being dismissed.