: Re: How do I know if a concept is sexist or not? In my story's world, witchcraft is a respected institution, with the most powerful practitioners being at the top echelons of society. Due to this,

@Cofer669

Vote Up Vote Down

thanks for asking this question. I feel like far too many people would get defensive or just brush this off.

So, I'll say a few things...

A: The posters who've said that you should consult women are dead-on. Really, those are the only folks who can give really good feedback on this. You might also want to think about the implications of this for the trans community or non-binary folks.

B: My personal opinion is that you're probably fine. I'm not a woman, so my own feedback should be taken with a grain of salt, but the magical system only identifies fertility as something of value. It doesn't necessarily imply that the people themselves have more or less value. I have one eye, and I feel that having two eyes would be preferable, if only for the simple fact that it extends the range of action. To me, having the ability To is always better, because you have a choice.

For example, I'd say that having the ability to fly is better than not, all things being equal. Because if someone doesn't want to fly (maybe they have a fear of heights), they don't have to. They, personally, have the choice, and them not exercising that option doesn't have any functional difference than if they didn't have the ability.

Usually ableism is a problem in that certain kinds of ability are tied to the worth of the person, and/or barriers are erected for people who don't have certain abilities.

That "disability" itself has no bearing on the worth of the person, all that comes from the social construction of it, and discrimination against it.
By that standard, infertility itself is simply the denial of a choice, it doesn't make the person less valuable, or enshrine the ability to choose as a source of that person's value. And hell, why wouldn't witches be able to have a magical birth, anyway? I'd say that the inability of infertile people to birth familiars seems unnecessary, and revisiting that might solve your problem.

But again, I'm a guy, so my feedback should be taken with a grain of salt.

C: My partner is a Women's and Gender Studies PhD candidate. I ran this by her, out of curiosity, just to understand the perspective of your friend, and she said its "flirting the line" because its elevating fertility as something of value. For similar reasons to B, she didn't consider it misogynistic, but thought you might want to revisit the idea and rework it a bit to avoid the problem of being misread.

So...overall, the vibe I'm getting is that its probably not sexist, but there's a decent chance it could be interpreted as such, and you may want to revamp specifics to avoid the problem.

Generally speaking, if you have to ask, even if its not sexist, its problematic enough that it might need work.

I've gotta say, though, I like the core of the idea. You may also want to dig into the various perspectives of women who either choose not to have kids, or cannot, to see how they feel about it. If you go through any iteration of this, that's going to be huge for this project. And understand that it's not your lived experience either...so be extra careful.

Good luck, m8 ☺

(0)

Login to post a comment!