part0025

The differences between men and women and how we see ourselves are at the core of this novel. Sexual divergence is at once simple and complex, compatible and estranged, utterly profound and yet so much empty dross. People are complicated. However, we are all human first and whatever else we may be second. We all see the world differently, and only part of that shift in perspective comes from the area between our legs. Actually, hormonal bias comes from an interconnected network of glands in our brains, a few major organs, and the area between our legs, but what does dry, dusty biology have to do with wet, pulsating sexuality and society's discomfort with comparative gender roles?

Certainly, women have as much to offer in many traditionally male roles, but often fail in such comparisons through no fault of their own. The issue fitting the round hole in a position crafted for a round peg is a matter of context, not skill. The problems that arise from this mismatch are 'solved' by attempting to make the holes more peg-like as if holiness was a detriment and peggishness the natural order of things. I have tried to highlight the idiocy of this false dichotomy by creating an institution in my fantasy universe that is strictly egalitarian for both genders while still acknowledging the differences as they arise in mixed company: the imperial army.

It's not so bizarre. The two flavors of soldier are fire-slinging mages and light armored cavalry. If anyone wants to defend the position that women are less able to throw fire than men or incapable of riding horses and fighting in leather and plate armor, please do. I love a good straw woman argument. I used to be a part of a lovely group of individuals called the Society for Creative Anachronism, fun-loving folks dedicated to reenacting history as it should have been, which included medieval gender equality. Both sexes were as enthusiastic as the other in learning the ancient methods of slashing and stabbing one another with all manner of blunted weaponry.

Of course, going too far in this direction is not an improvement over chauvinism. The danger of pure egalitarianism is the erasure of the differences between the sexes altogether in an attempt to force everyone to conform to a bland, neutered sameness. Such people tap dance around the topic of sexuality as if our bodies were better ignored. There is nothing inherently dirty about human sensuality. Unfortunately, the typical diametric response to sex is to either sensationalize it as something tawdry or dismiss it as something unwholesome.

My villain is a woman, perhaps demonstrating the worst side of that particular gender as my hero-in-training protagonist is meant to demonstrate the best. However, both are passionate individuals, skilled orators, appreciate good fashion, and are women and proud of it. However, context is everything. Seen through the fractured prism of male gaze, those same women are ruled by their emotions, a pair of pestiferous nags, horrible clotheshorses, and uppity stuck up whores pretending to be as good as a man. Of course, 'male gaze' typifies the worst, crudest outliers of that particular gender, but one cannot deny that men and women see things differently: our lives, our dreams, our bodies, and each other.

This novel celebrates the differences between the sexes, but does not use gender as the sole means to define someone or restrain their potential. People are not stereotypes. They should not be treated with the disdain that comes of judging someone using such narrow, skewed criteria. Half the fun I had writing this book was in exposing the little ways men and woman react to their own preconceptions of each other and push beyond them. It is my fervent wish that we can all learn to do the same for ourselves and make my fantasy a sensual reality.