Reader’s question: Is Gor really sexist?

Yes, we’re off to a strong start, and it’s in response to a question from a reader, obviously a bit enlightened: “Is the world of Gor as sexist as ancient Roman society was, or even the Victorian era of the 19^th century?”

And it’s a very interesting and clever question! Because, yes, for us, Western citizens of the 21^st century, the world of Gor, its culture, its society, its legal principles, everything is totally and unquestionably sexist. But for us, because we come from a clear sociocultural context, which has evolved considerably over the last century.

If you prefer, it is the difference between an absolute definition and a relative definition. Here is the full definition of sexism:

Sexism is a discriminatory attitude based on a person’s sex or, by extension, gender. Sexism is linked to prejudice and the concept of stereotype and gender role, which may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to the other. In its extreme form, it can encourage sexual harassment, rape or any other form of sexual violence. Sexism also refers to discrimination leading to gender inequality. As the targets of sexism are mainly women, this concept often refers to misogyny, anti-feminism and discrimination against women.

Yeah, the world of Gor ticks a lot of the boxes. But strangely, not all of them. And that’s where the relative definition comes in. Let’s take stock of what a free woman in the world of Gor is generally able to do:

• · She can own property and assets in her own name.
• · She can trade, sign contracts and manage a business.
• · She can practice a profession.
• · She can participate in political life and vote.
• · She can rise in the hierarchy of her caste and her professional branch.
• · She can lead, including politically, and obtain the status of high legislative or executive authority.
• · She can take higher education courses, and she can teach.
• · She has extensive legal protection, including against harassment, assault and rape.

Now let’s see what rights women had under the Napoleon’s Code.

Adopted in 1804, the Napoleon’s Civil Code enshrined the inferior position of women. Wives were now under the domination of their husbands and lost all legal rights. Under the authority of the pater familias, women could no longer manage their finances, have a job or sign contracts. Within the family, wives were considered to be minors and violence, such as the infamous “marital duty” (rape within the married couple), was tolerated. Legally, the woman was considered a minor, under the total and absolute authority of her father, then her husband. Legally, she was “incapable”, therefore forbidden to travel, to have a bank account or to manage a business in any way. Women were forbidden to work in most professions, to enter higher education and even less so to teach. This situation lasted until 1890.

And in Victorian England from 1837 to 1901?

Legally, the rights of married women were similar to those of minor children: they had no right to vote, to lodge a complaint, or even to own property. What’s more, the woman is in a way disembodied: her body, perceived as a temple sheltering a pure and innocent soul, must not be “defiled”, whether by artifice such as make-up or by the pleasures of the flesh. Confined to the role of mother and housewife, women in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 19th century were not allowed to have a job (except in education), or to have a deposit or savings bank account. In short, although Victorian women had to be treated as saints, they were still deprived of any legal capacity. Various reforms implemented over the course of the century did, however, enable the first steps to be taken towards the emancipation of women.

The assets brought into the marriage by the wife became the property of the husband, even in the event of divorce. The wife’s income reverted de facto in its entirety to her husband, just as custody of the children was automatically granted to the father in the event of separation of the couple. The wife is not authorized to conclude any contract whatsoever: to do so, she must obtain her husband’s consent. The only good point is that the murder of a wife by her husband is punishable by the death penalty, in the same way as any other murder (which was not the case in the Napoleonic Code).

What about Imperial Rome?

Roman women had civil rights, much more than in the examples above, for that matter, but they were excluded from most political rights, including the right to vote.

Civil rights

• · They could buy, manage and sell property, and take legal action.
• · They could inherit in their own right.
• · They could testify in court, with the exception of courtesans and prostitutes.
• · They could receive a eulogy at their funeral.

Limited rights

• · They were legally minors and could not participate in political life.
• · They were exempt from civic duties, such as military service or tax obligations.
• · They could not represent others in court.
• · They were excluded from the civilia officia, i.e. the duties and rights of male citizens.
• · They could not divorce (but this appeared later, from the reign of Augustus onwards)

In this area, a large part of Norman’s societal model is based on Imperial Rome, but he nevertheless gave the free women of Gor even more extensive rights. Yes, they remain limited and the social framework is still sexist, but there are several degrees of improvement when comparing Gorean society with that of 19th-century Europe.

That said, there are still some notable points of a purely cultural nature: the straitjacket of dress, even if it differs, for example, is quite rigid, strict and constricting in the world of Gor. The Victorian era women’s dress code was a veritable prison of fabric, whereas the older fashions of the Napoleonic period were rather sexy. Gorean dress codes are particularly strict, and yes, they too are prisons of fabric. Among other things, a woman must not reveal anything of her face, except her eyes. As for the Gorean fashion codes, I have written an article here, if you are interested.

And of course, I left out Gorean slavery, which is something of an obsession for the men of Gor, and a constant risk for all the women of Gor. But not really any more than the women of Rome, and despite some more extensive rights for slaves in Rome, their life in general was frankly not pleasant. While some Gorean customs involving slavery – especially everything to do with sex and fantasies – are undoubtedly cruel and perverse, Roman society was largely more ruthless to its slaves from a legal point of view. As proof of this, I have a legal case on the subject of: a slave kills his master. As punishment, should all the slaves owned by this man (he had more than 300) be killed, or only those engaged in the domestic work of his domus (30)? In the end, despite the efforts of the lawyers of the time, all the slaves were crucified on the road leading to the domus of the murdered man. Slavery IS sexist by nature, there’s no question about it.

In conclusion, is Gor sexist? Without a doubt, yes, obviously. Is it as sexist as European society in the 19^th century? Much less so. And as sexist as ancient Roman society? It’s quite similar, but even there, Gor seems to act as a progressive model.

Is this an excuse to turn a blind eye to the sexism and misogyny of Norman’s novels? Not at all, and we must be fully aware of that! It would be wrong of me to play it down, with the excuse that there have been far worse things in the fairly recent past, in fact. But here too, we must be fully aware of that when we address this subject.

In history, nothing is black or white, there are only nuances, exceptions, and a strong complexity that I have not even tried to address here otherwise, my article would be 20 pages long which would undoubtedly be very boring to read.